<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<head>
    <title>PINK FLOYD - Reviews</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
    <meta name="Author" content="Fernando H. Canto" />
    <meta name="Keywords" content="Pink Floyd, reviews, albums, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Syd Barrett, Dark Side Of The Moon, The Wall, Wish You Were Here" />
    <link rel="stylesheet" title="Classic Blue" href="code/classic.css" />
    <link rel="alternate stylesheet" title="Plainish" href="code/plain.css" />
</head>

<body>

<h1>
    PINK FLOYD
</h1>

<div class="quote">
    "Everybody knows the history of our band: Syd Barrett is a genius and Roger Waters is an arsehole."<br />

    <img alt="Gilmour, Barrett, Waters, Wright and Mason: The temporary lineup from 1968" src="images/floyd.png" />
</div>

<div class="members">
    David Gilmour, Syd Barrett, Roger Waters, Rick Wright and Nick Mason<br />

    <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/games/create.html">South Park Create-A-Character</a>
</div>

<p class="albumList">
  <a href="#dawn">Piper At The Gates Of Dawn</a><br />
  <a href="#secrets">A Saucerful Of Secrets</a><br />
  <a href="#more">More</a><br />
  <a href="#ummagumma">Ummagumma</a><br />
  <a href="#mother">Atom Heart Mother</a><br />
  <a href="#meddle">Meddle</a><br />
  <a href="#clouds">Obscured By Clouds</a><br />
  <a href="#moon">Dark Side Of The Moon</a><br />
  <a href="#here">Wish You Were Here</a><br />
  <a href="#animals">Animals</a><br />
  <a href="#wall">The Wall</a><br />
  <a href="#cut">The Final Cut</a><br />
  <a href="#reason">A Momentary Lapse Of Reason</a><br />
  <a href="#bell">The Division Bell</a><br />
</p>
<p>
  <a href="#laughs">Syd Barrett: The Madcap Laughs</a><br />
  <a href="#hitchhiking">Roger Waters: The Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking</a><br />
</p>

<p>Right. Pink Floyd. It's easy to like Pink Floyd. You listen to <strong>The Wall</strong>, and call it the best album ever made. Then, you are <em>cool</em>, because you like Pink Floyd.</p>

<p>Okay, sorry for being so rude in this introductory paragraph. But I should vent my frustration. Pink Floyd is <em>so</em> big, yet, few people know its <em>real</em> history. And I'm being serious: many people are <em>completely</em> ignorant of the pre-<strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> Floyd, and that's a scientifically proven fact. It makes me kinda sad... because the band came a long way before they hit it big with the Prism Album. And by that time, they had built a darned great career. There are <em>many</em> things to look on Pink Floyd's "early" stage. If you doubt it, just look at the reviews below! Heh heh. Or did you come here only to check my <strong>The Wall</strong> review? Eh? Eh?</p>

<p>Sorry. Allow me to cool down. I have to admit that, like many people, I had a wrong impression of Pink Floyd before I knew them. Knowing 'Another Brick In The Wall, part II' fairly well, I had an utter shock when I first listened to the <strong>Progressive File</strong> (stupid title) compilation borrowed from a friend of mine. What kind of music <em>was</em> that? Slow, ugly, soft... That was not the rock band I expected it to be! That caused me to be a bit... er, "repulsed" of the band, for a while. But, thank God, with time, I learned to appreciate the band. My first album, <strong>Meddle</strong>, was one of the main factors that contributed to the band's "growth" in me, and now, I fondly regard Pink Floyd as one of my absolute favourite bands ever.</p>

<p>What most attracts me to Pink Floyd is their absolutely unique <em>style</em>. They are a kind of band that <em>cannot</em> be imitated. Since the very beginning, when Syd Barrett was their lead guitarist, they already stood out for the dark psychedelia, and with their slow transition into serious Art Rock, they managed to acquire a lot of elements that gave them a whole, unique style. But <em>what</em> are those elements? Many people go totally ape over guitarist David Gilmour. And indeed, he's the kind of guitarist that couldn't be replaced. As a rhythm guitarist, he was always able to provide the subtle, distinctive playing that suited the band 100%. But I have one <em>big</em> gripe after him: he's a big show-off. He has always had a big knack for long guitar solos, and I must admit that I don't like his style. His soloing has always struck me as completely cold, unemotional and unimpressed. If you wanna plan 12 bars ahead, at least play something <em>beautiful</em>, like Steve Hackett did on Genesis! But no. Especially since <strong>The Wall</strong>, all he does is noodle, noodle, noodle... You know 'Comfortably Numb', don't you? It's that kind of insipid playing that I'm referring. But since all the kids loved it, he would spend hours and hours pleasing the crowds with his solos - especially on live shows. You know, there are several of his solos that I <em>do</em> enjoy: 'Have A Cigar', his solo spots on the instrumental break of 'Echoes', along with Rick's organ, and even 'Another Brick In The Wall, part II', like some commentator mentioned below. But nah. As a whole, David completely fails me as a soloist. If you wanna plan 12 bars ahead, at least play something <em>beautiful</em>, like Steve Hackett did on Genesis! But nah. I can't grab a <em>single</em> good melodic idea on the solos for 'Comfortably Numb'. You can sense I don't like that song, but leave it for the review.</p>

<p>When people don't rave at David, they definitely rave at Roger Waters. And actually, I don't think I have ever seen a "fan" raving at <em>both</em> at the same time: you either love David and hate Roger, or love Roger and hate David. I'll explain that later. But now, I'll say that yes, Roger was definitely a good composer. In their stretch of 70's albums, he has been the "leader" of the band. But he had always been a kind of a "spiritual" leader for the band, showing the band where to go. But once he took the songwriting job all for himself, he showed that he was far weaker than he seemed to be, and in fact, the strength of Pink Floyd are the composing skills of <em>all</em> members together. Their real masterpieces were the result of the four geniuses combined, and that becomes painfully clear when we witness the destruction of the band on their latter albums. When Roger tried to dominate, he failed. When David tried to dominate, he also failed.</p>

<p>And I will add something quite bold on here: I'm quite sure that the one man responsible for that unique sound of the band is not Roger, nor David. No, siree, that man is keyboardist Rick Wright. You gotta agree with me that, secretly, he was responsible for many of those synth sounds that gave those strange characteristics to the band's sound. And not just synth: be it organ, piano, Mellotron, he's always behind the whole sound. Besides, he's one of the most gifted songwriters on the band. 'Summer '68'? Wright! 'See-Saw'? Wright! 'Us And Them'? Waters and Wright! 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond part IX'? Wright! You can just notice the lack of Wright on albums like <strong>Animals</strong> and <strong>The Wall</strong>. Just compare those albums to the earlier ones and you'll see the difference.</p>

<p>But like I said, the one big force in the band was the whole unit. They only worked well when they worked together. And that's it. Let's stop those silly Waters vs. Gilmour fights, because they won't lead you anywhere. Also, let's look at those early albums that so few people know about. Okay?</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:seanduvall4@hotmail.com">Sean Duvall</a> (December 18, 2003):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>
Excuse me for a moment but I must correct you. To say that David Gilmour's guitar work is slow and over calculated and (good god) COLD? Is just wrong my friend. You're telling me the solo on 'Another Brick in the Wall' wasnt one of the best ever played? The tone was perfect, the phrasing sublime...I feel bad that you cant see it.<br />
If I'm in the dark here please let me know what guitar players I should be listening to. Obviously I'm out of my fucking mind.<br />
<span class="edNote">[editor's note: Well, that's pretty much it. These are the basic feelings I get when listening to Dave Gilmour, and I guess neither of us is wrong - after all, it's just a matter of taste. But like I said, there <em>are</em> moments when David pulls off something real great out of his guitar. 'Another Brick In The Wall, part 2' is a good example, and so is 'Echoes' like I mentioned above. But his work on stuff from <strong>A Momentary Lapse Of Reason</strong> and <strong>The Division Bell</strong>, and even 'classics' like 'Comfortably Numb' never hit any nerve on me. And that's really the opinion I hold. If you want suggestions of other guitarists, I wholeheartedly recommend Mike Oldfield with his <strong>Ommadawn</strong>, <strong>Tubular Bells</strong> and <strong>Amarok</strong>. And thanks for the comments. Feel free to send more.]</span>
</p>
</div>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:straker@clear.net.nz">Jeff Stone</a> (November 20, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>I must agree with you as re: most of your Pink Floyd comments.  However, I LOVE Fat Old Sun and Atom Heart Mother's one of PF's best tunes!  Nice site, sir. The South Park characters add that extra frisson.</p>
 
<p>Best of luck with your music!  I will recommend your site to others.</p>
 
<p>Regards<br />
Straker</p>
</div>

<p><a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail your ideas</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="dawn">Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (1967)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Astronomy Domine</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Astronomy Domine ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Lucifer Sam ++</span></li>
  <li>Matilda Mother <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Flaming <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Pow R Toc H</li>
  <li>Take Up Thy Sthetoscope And Walk</li>
  <li><span class="good">Interstellar Overdrive ++</span></li>
  <li>The Gnome</li>
  <li>Chapter 24</li>
  <li>The Scarecrow</li>
  <li>Bike <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Here's the one original Pink Floyd line-up. Not that there's any huge difference in terms of band members - only one member different from the "classic" line-up. But the band as a whole was a completely different affair. See, Syd Barrett was the <em>real</em> mastermind of the band, and it's easy to see that as ten tracks here are credited solely to him. And the whole band followed his spirit of wild, hallucenogenic experimentation; so much that this album doesn't even truly represent the band's overall sound at that epoch. Songs like 'Matilda Mother' and 'Take Up Thy Sthetoscope And Walk' would be interrupted with jams that would go on for ten minutes or so (in fact, the latter <em>did</em> go to such lengths during the recording, and was edited short by producer Norman Smith - much to the annoyance of the band), and the magnum-opus 'Interstellar Overdrive' would be nearly twice as long on live performances. In one hand, it's sad that we don't get to see <em>that</em> side of the band in this album, but on the positive side, we get to see other, also equally interesting sides of them. And honestly, those sides help make the album much more surprising and interesting than it would be if it were filled with three or four lengthy improvisations.</p>

<p>And there's plenty of goods for the psychedelia-hungry people in the world, enough to raise this album to "classic" status either way. In my opinion, the thing that makes it so cool and classic is that Syd had a different vision on these psychedelic affairs - instead of trippy, colourful visions of flowers and birds, Syd's songs are otherworldly, wicked and dark at times. At other times, he's drawing inspiration from fairy tales, nursery rhymes and the I Ching. Cool, I say! But all that vision needs some <em>talent</em> to be backed up with, doesn't it? And that he was: creative, imaginative and smart, both in composition as in performance. He had interesting ways of playing the guitar, using from violin bows to ball bearings on it (don't ask me how), and going from cool, heavy riffing to schizophrenic plucking and howling within seconds. And as a songwriter?... Well, there's little to be said and a lot to be heard. Just check it out for yourself.</p>

<p>Oh, wait... This is a review, isn't it?</p>

<p>Yes, well, in only two tracks, the album displays two big songwriting strengths: 'Astronomy Domine' is one of their primary psychedelic standards, building a crazy monster of astronomical thematics (duh), frightening guitar riffs and stuff, all sorts of electronic effects and competent, exciting improvisation. It's a wonder, both in terms of technology and of composition, and also takes its time to display their playing skills. They're not technical wizards, but they had the chops for this kind of music. It's particularly cool how Nick Mason, instead of providing a constant rhythm, keeps throwing those broken, stumbling fills over the song. Rick Wright, at this stage, was a rather poor soloist (as you can check out in some moments here), but he was tops when making creepy chords and effects on his Farfisa organ, and whatever other keyboards he played here. And it's all here! There couldn't have been a better way to open the album than with this monstrous, 4-minute psychedelic symphony of things. And no better way to follow it up with the insane, infectious 'Lucifer Sam', a 3-minute pop song that keeps up the same level of energy and creativity from the previous one. Syd's vocal lines and "James Bond" guitar riff are priceless, really. You might never forget this song after hearing it once or twice, so be careful.</p>

<p>As far as "pop" songwiting, Syd only gets close again on 'Flaming', a lovely, catchy laid-back with the childish overtones coming to surface, and an extra sweet melody delivered with near-perfection by Syd. And the band wastes no opportunity to provide a trippy, spaced-out middle break, with Rick playing a tinkling piano. The other songs he contributes are all pretty whacky on their own rights, but still good, you see. 'Matilda Mother' has very little of that true "trippy" psychedelic vibe, but expresses Syd's interests in childlike thematics. It's a song about being told fairy tales, after all! And the music has a lot of that airy, dreamy atmosphere, only going for the trippy thing, again, in the middle break. I find that bass riff really cool, even though Rick's organ soloing is all awkward and broken. But it's alright. The childhood themes come back with strength on the second side, with 'The Gnome' and 'The Scarecrow', songs as simple and as charming as they can be. There's also 'Chapter 24', bringing its lyrics from the I Ching - another object of Syd's interest - and a music that, while not being particularly memorable, is quite nice and pleasant. The other... um, <em>notable</em> songwriting effort here is Roger Waters's 'Take Up Thy Sthetoscope And Walk'. I say notable because it's not exactly <em>good</em>, you see. The "song" is mostly some short, stupid "wordplay" verses sung in a remarkably obnoxious way: "I'm in bed! Aching head! Gold is lead! Jesus bled! Underfed! etc.! etc.!" and so on. But about thirty seconds later, it turns into the bit the band was interested in: wild, psychedelic jamming!You know, no matter how stupid the "song" portion is, I just like this track because it has the most furious, frantic jamming on the album, and lots of interesting guitar noise, too, of course.</p>

<p>And so, there are the truly psychedelic masterpieces of the album. 'Interstellar Overdrive' <em>is</em>, by all means, a landmark, even though not everyone in the world loves it to death. I think it's delightful, though: opening up with a menacing, ultra-cool guitar riff, which then collapses into about eight minutes of completely loose, freaky, atonal instrument trashing. I think it's particularly cool how Waters seems to, at all times, hold the whole thing somewhat "tight" with his constant bass lines, while Rick and Syd go completely nuts, leading the song into a series of small crescendos, mini-climaxes and tension mounting holes of quietness, underpinned by Nick's mathematical drum stomps and rolls. And at the end, when the whole thing erupts, the initial riff bursts in, spinning around the speakers in a totally disorienting way (for those who have the Stereo edition, of course), before it falls for a final, definitive burst of guitar noise falling into the darkness. Wow. Did I write all that? Dorky! At least, now, you'll have something of a picture of the song, in case you don't know it. If you do, well, be aware that I really, really like the song. Few guys could make noise the way these guys could.</p>

<p>As for 'Pow R Toc H', well, it's less remarkable; filled with silly vocal "animal" effects, and counting on a rather cool, laid-back "Latin" tinged jam at the beginning, before it crumbles into noise. Ah, but I can't go without mentioning 'Bike', a hysterical song which mixes in the childhood and the trippy themes so much that you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. Suffice to say, the song sounds <em>exactly</em> like the "room full of musical tunes" that Syd describes at the end, with so much stuff going on during the verses, quieting down for the chorus before kicking back again. You know, it's just... hilarious? Weird? Who knows. It's just Syd Barrett. And, yes, he was the frontman of the band only for this LP. Shortly afterwards, the decline of his mental health became way too aparent,to the point where David Gilmour had to be called to work as his replacement on live shows. Fortunately, there would be space for a final farewell on their next album.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - I can't really complain about much, here.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - This <em>is</em> really cool stuff. It's just that "stoned music" doesn't resonate <em>that</em> much in me.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>15/15</strong></big> - I... what can I say here?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Plenty of niftiness. With only a few questionable bits (some songs n side B, 'Take Up Thy Sthetoscope And Walk').<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - It holds up well... most of the way.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Raves? "Say NO to drugs" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send your comments!</a></p>

<hr />

<h2 id="secrets">A Saucerful Of Secrets (1968)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>A Saucerful Of Secrets</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Let There Be More Light <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Remember A Day</li>
  <li>Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun</li>
  <li>Corporal Clegg <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">A Saucerful Of Secrets ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">See Saw ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Jugband Blues ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>See, Pink Floyd actually were a five-piece band for a short while, and you <em>can</em> sort of hear them as that in a few bits of this album. But, for the most part, Syd was already full-time replaced by David Gilmour, so you can hear him and his guitar going *whiiiiiiiiiiiiine* *squeeeeeeeeeeal* *shriiiiiiiiiiiek* for a while already. Before they sacked Syd completely, though, it was considered to keep Syd as the main songwriting force. But even that proved to be too much for him. As a result, there's only one Syd composition here, which is 'Jugband Blues'. And you can already see how completely detached it is from anything he did on the previous album, with none of the "trippy" or "childlike" themes. The lyrics <em>are</em> quite zany at times, but that has more to do with his mental health than anything. And that's exactly the thing that makes the song so sad, in spite of the "whacked out" music going on, with all those different parts, the silly "la la la la la la la" singing and the pseudo-psychedelic intermezzo with the brasses. The disturbing and touching bit is the ending, when it's just Syd and the guitar. There couldn't possibly be a better ending to the album than 'Jugband Blues', which is also the end of Syd as a member of Pink Floyd.</p>

<p>The other six songs on the album display the state of the band, witout Syd, trying to figure out <em>exactly</em> how to stick together without who once was the <em>one</em> songwriting genius among them. Not only they'd need <em>someone</em> to write songs, but they'd have to deal with their fans, and even with much of their crew, who were already abandoning the ship ("No Syd, no Floyd"). It turned out that the work fell mainly to Roger Waters, who contributed three tracks here. Rick Wright wrote two, and the title track is credited to all four members. And Roger truly produced some hardcore inspiration to come up with three actual <em>compositions</em>, instead of the excuse for a trippy jam that is 'Take Up Thy Sthetoscope And Walk'. There's one track here that displays what would turn into his huge obsession with war themes, which is 'Corporal Clegg'. I really like that track, actually: it's intelligently written, and combines trippiness with humour in a very clever way. Plus, the performance is just hysterical, with several different bits slammed against each other, Roger making freaky voices to deliver the lyrics, and a "war march" kazoo melody. This should be the first, the only and the last time you hear Roger talking about war themes in a humourous manner, by the way. Enjoy it while it lasts.</p>

<p>For the other two tracks, Roger was trying <em>really</em> hard to keep up with the astral, psychedelic vibe. Really hard indeed. After all, his job was to "replace" Syd, even though he doesn't keep up the same themes. He only kept somewhat the space themes, but deals with it in a much more sci-fi, depressing way. 'Let There Be Light' has a really cool beginning, kicking off with a fast bass riff, gradually spiced by organs, cymbals and other spacey effects. The main part of the song has mantraic lyrics delivered in a near-whisper by Rick, and bursts into loud verses by Roger. And it ends with all sorts of wild sounds and noises, led by the very first slow-as-hell David Gilmour guitar solo caught on a Pink Floyd record. It only becomes somewhat ghostly and scary by the swirling astral noises going behind it, really. They made it work very well. 'Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun' goes with much more "guru" setting, almost as a song to meditate to. It's made memorable by the simple, clever melody that holds it together. The "spaced-out" instrumental middle isn't all that spaced-out, really. It's just quiet, hushed, complete with seagull sounds and whatnot. Guru? You betcha. There definitely wasn't anything like this in <strong>Piper At The Gates Of Dawn</strong>. Maybe 'Chapter 24', but this is MUCH more serious.</p>

<p>Rick's two songs are what I would call "psychedelic folk ballads", but let's not stick to labels, shall we? 'Remember A Day' brings up the childlike themes once again - and hey, so does 'See Saw' - but it's more childhood nostalgia than anything. The former is darker, airier, features broken drum patterns, a really neat melody, and an instrumental break with what seems to be Syd freaking out on the guitar. It's nice, but I like 'See Saw' more. In fact,it's my favourite song behind 'Jugband Blues'. It's <em>very</em> pretty, and for one, Rick focuses more on that great melody, only allowing the trippiness to kick in at the end of each verse. Aside from that, it's one beautiful ballad, and you can see how confident Rick was on it by the fact that he gave the working title of 'The Most Boring Song I've Ever Heard, Bar Two' to it. Hey, man, it must have been a very nice, traquil, happy mood while making the record, you know.</p>

<p>There's the title track, too. And I've separated it from the "songs" because, well, it's not a "song". It's an actual instrumental piece, credited to all four members, which is much more elaborated and previously-written than 'Astronomy Domine'. Is it better? Hard to tell, but it is much closer to the "well-known" spirit of Pink Floyd than 'Astronomy Domine'. And it IS good as hell. The loud, dissonant noises aren't used to create a trippy atmosphere, but more to FREAK YOU OUT completely. After all, it's intended to narrate a battle - not necessarily a space battle, even though it sounds like it. It's eerie and freaky, divided in four well-defined parts; a "building-up" intro (which is my favourite part of the song - very tense!); the "Syncopated Pandemonium", as it's called, built on a drum loop; a short,"rebuilding" transition and the final, unexpected, beautiful "requiem", with David Gilmour overdubbing his own voice to create a choir. Wow, very good stuff! If there's any such thing as a Pink Floyd classic, this is one.</p>

<p>As for the album as a whole, it isn't exactly a Pink Floyd classic. It's patchy, and doesn't truly display the full potential of the band - even though it's surprisingly good, considering the circumstances under which it was made. I can't even call it a "transitional" album, though, because if this <em>is</em> a transitional album, the next three are as well. Heck, I could even dare say that <em>every</em> album up until <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> is "transitional", but I won't, because those albums absolutely aren't that dismissable. Pink Floyd was undergoing a transition all this time, and every album is very representative of the stage they were in. And that's how it is. And this album is worth getting, if you like Pink Floyd, even more if you like psychedelia. Just don't overlook it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Enjoyable, yes. Very good, at parts.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Aside from 'Jugband Blues' (and maybe 'See Saw'), it only depends how much I'm into psychedelia at the moment.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Groundbreaking? A bit, maybe.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/15</strong></big> - There isn't any utter lack of melody, that's for sure.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Oh, no, not at all.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/11.png" alt="11" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Criticism? "<strong>Piper</strong> is better" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="more">More (1968)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Green Is The Colour</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Cirrus Minor ++</span></li>
  <li>The Nile Song <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Crying Song</li>
  <li>Up The Khyber <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Green Is The Colour ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Cymbaline ++</span></li>
  <li>Party Sequence</li>
  <li>Main Theme <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Ibiza Bar</li>
  <li>More Blues</li>
  <li>Quicksilver</li>
  <li>A Spanish Piece</li>
  <li>Dramatic Theme</li>
</ol>

<p>Of course, asking the reader not to overlook <strong>A Saucerful Of Secrets</strong> can sound a bit futile when we reach the most unknown and unheard of Pink Floyd album in existance, the soundtrack to a 1969 Barbet Schroeder movie called <em>More</em>. I haven't watched the movie, but it seems to be about drugs - not a very inadequate theme for Pink Floyd to deal with, huh. Either way, that "soundtrack" label might put off potential listeners, and that's quite a shame. Not that this is an <em>excellent</em> record - okay, for some people it might be - but it's an utterly unique item in the band's catalogue, and a very interesting thing to listen to. See, it <em>is</em> a soundtrack; it has a couple of tracks that might not mean much when taken off their context, but truth be told, there are a couple of real <em>classics</em> in the album. And one of the most appealing things about the record is exactly that balance between "movie soundtrack" and "actual songs": there's a fair bit of experimentalism and avantgarde sonic researching going on, but it doesn't go overboard, and it's always grounded by some <em>meaning</em>, and "framed" by a couple of really good songs.</p>

<p>Not to mention that there are some things here that you won't hear <em>anywhere else</em>. For example, did you ever hear the band playing heavy metal? No, no, I don't mean "heavy stuff" like 'Young Lust' and 'Not Now John'. I mean actual <em>heavy metal</em>, that really does match the Beatles' 'Helter Skelter' in terms of heaviness. Well, there's 'The Nile Song', which is absolutely primitive and retarded, but <em>awfully</em> entertaining in its own right. The distorted, ugly guitar chords and the slow, stomping rhythm, led by Gilmour's angry yelling, is an absolute thrill; not to mention the clever trick of raising the song a full tone with each verse, and the screaming at the end ("OH, MAN!!"). Very neat! It's the kind of song that you're supposed to hate, and I like it because of that. If you enjoy it, there's also 'Ibiza Bar', which sounds very similar, but is considerably less interesting and entertaining, but it features neat "slow breaks" at the end of each verse. Not bad.</p>

<p>The ballads here are the real highlights, in my opinion, though. The folky 'Green Is The Colour' has always been a favourite of mine with its simplicity and sweetness. That squealing woodwind instrument becomes a tad inadequate at times, but it doesn't detract from the song's beauty. 'Cymbaline' is a grander song, but with a hushed, almost mysterious atmosphere, and a <em>really</em> beautiful melody. It's a great one, too, and I love the way it ends with a lengthy, "atmospheric" coda with a floatng Farfisa organ and sparse piano. Great work by Rick. 'Cirrus Minor' is Waters' showcase, with a hazy atmosphere and a <em>wonderful</em> tune for guitar and vocals only, faintly accompanied by Rick's organ. It features <em>another</em> great instrumental coda by Rick, augmented by cleverly used sound effects. 'Crying Song' is something unexplainable, too. It's very, very hushed and quiet, and features a gorgeously simple and innocent melody. Very nifty guitar solo at the end, there.</p>

<p>What's left to be told about, now, are the instrumental pieces. Some of them are rather short, and maybe a bit slight, like the one minute 'Party Sequence', which is just African drums with the annoying woodwind instrument thingy again. 'More Blues' is actual blues, mainly with Gilmour soloing over a very slow, VERY faint drum and bass backing, which slowly becomes louder, louder and ends with a "bang!" and fades back to quietness, and the process repeats itself. You also get the oddity 'A Spanish Piece', with Roger and David both playing really cool stuff on their Spanish guitars, and Gilmour doing a completely stupid (in a, err, good way, I suppose) rant with a stereotypical Spanish accent. 'Quicksilver' is the lengthiest track on the record, on the other hand, and also the least interesting. It just goes on and on with hushed sounds, hums, cymbal-like noises and organ improvisation. Might be cool, atmospheric movie music, but as a standalone track, it doesn't do a lot to me. Those freaky, scary sounds at the beginning are really cool, though.</p>

<p>I do have a couple of favourites. 'Dramatic Theme' is quite cool, even though it's essentially a radically slowed-down 'Let There Be More Light', with the bass line and the guitar solo, eventually collapsing into a giant haze of echoes. 'Up The Khyber' is a whacked-out jazz/fusion/whatever jam, featuring a frantic drum pattern by Nick, and wicked piano and organ improvisation. I also really like the 'Main Theme', an instrumental with a really groovy rhythm, cool synth solos (actually, that might be just his Farfisa organ again) and Gilmour plucking some bendy, high pitched notes from his guitar. Very funky! But then, it might be debatable whether those thirteen pieces "fit" very well. They do, if you think of the album as a simple movie soundtrack. But as a <em>Pink Floyd album</em>, it might be a bit unclear how solid and consistent it really is. It's patchy, that's for sure. And not everything here is absolutely top notch. But then again, it's a heck of an interesting listen, and I'm confident that the record is more overlooked than it deserves to be. It's not essential to the casual Pink Floyd listener, but... Heck, it's quite emblematic, and maybe even more representative of this "era" than <strong>Ummagumma</strong>. But that is debatable. Everything is. My reviews are. Your taste is. Mine isn't, obviously.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>11/15</strong></big> - It's not awesome all the way through. It has a couple of awesome bits, but that's it.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Hmm... I guess these instrumental tracks work in the movie. The songs, though, work always.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>11/15</strong></big> - Pretty fresh, interesting stuff going on.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Very neat music, very little meaningless doddling.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Erm...
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/10.png" alt="10" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Rants? "This album sucks" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="ummagumma">Ummagumma (1969)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Careful With That Axe, Eugene</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Astronomy Domine</li>
  <li><span class="good">Careful With That Axe, Eugene ++</span></li>
  <li>Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>A Saucerful Of Secrets</li>
  <li>Sysyphus, part 1</li>
  <li>Sysyphus, part 2 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Sysyphus, part 3 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Sysyphus, part 4 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Grantchester Meadows ++</span></li>
  <li>Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Narrow Way, part 1 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Narrow Way, part 2 <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Narrow Way, part 3</li>
  <li>The Grand Vizier's Garden Party - Entrance</li>
  <li>The Grand Vizier's Garden Party - Entertainment</li>
  <li>The Grand Vizier's Garden Party - Exit</li>
</ol>

<p>If you didn't realise it already, let me tell you that I generally tend to stay away from reviewing live albums. Why? Mainly because I don't like reviewing material that I already reviewed (I'm not talking about rewriting reviews here). And actually, I'm <em>only</em> reviewing this record because only half of it is live, and less than half of it is material that I've already talked about here. For the unenlightened, this is a double LP, the first one being a collection of four tracks taken from live shows, and the second one being... a quite interesting and unusual studio recording by the band that I'll talk about a few paragraphs later. For now, let's get the live record out of the way, shall we?</p>

<p>So that's fine. Well, listening to that record will show you that, on their live shows, the band had quite a different sound from what was recorded on their studio releases. Huh, that was exactly the reason why they issued this live record, anyway. And for those who thought the band was just too restrained and tame in the studio, well, this record will be a gift from the gods. Me? Well, I'm not really ape over it. You see, one thing I liked about the title track of <strong>A Saucerful Of Secrets</strong>, for example, was its sense of structure, its machine-like evolution and growth, and its steel-like cold-to-the-touch surface and core. It was a big, cold, scary mechanical monster, and I liked that. On here, well, it loses that. The band is playing live, only four instruments at a time, and to compensate for the lack of thickness in the sound, they just completely let it loose. It's not that I don't like that wild, psychotic build-up, or that squealing guitar that makes it sound like the song is going to explode, but that kind of stuff wasn't exactly what I liked about the original song. I'll give the song the credit that it ends in a really cool way, with the whole band joining in for the final part of the song. I'd preferred if David didn't sing, though, since there was no way they could get the awesome choral effect on a live setting. It doesn't harm that ending too much, though. On the other hand, there's 'Astronomy Domine'. And that song wasn't a case of "mechanical coolness"; on the contrary, it was the impulse, the spontaneity, the sense of improvisation, and the energy of the performance that made it rock so much. And here, the band sounds almost shy of playing the song. It goes on for eight minutes, but that's mainly due to the lonely, wandering organ solo Rick plays halfway through the song. It creates very nicely that feeling of dark emptiness of space, or something, but... eh! That's not exactly what the song was made for, I believe. It's nice, but they could have reserved that for another song, maybe? 'Astronomy Domine' just doesn't sound too appealing when it doesn't rock the house down.</p>

<p>The other two tracks, though, I definitely tip my hat to them. 'Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun' preserves the mystery and quietness of the original version, but shrugs off the "guru" vibe, becoming more eerie and shiver-inducing. And as the first verses end, they get the song going into a crazy crescendo, before they go back to where they started. It's a shame it ends with a fade out, though. 'Careful With That Axe, Eugene', is the only new song in this disc, and it's a treat! A <em>perfect</em> performance from beginning to end, combining the clever, nearly mathematical tension building in the intro, the freaky switching into loud jamming propelled by Roger's inhuman screaming (yes, that's him screaming), and the gradual diminuendo, which closes the song as if nothing happened at all.<em>That</em> is brilliance. The chemistry between the instruments is particularly impressive. It works like nothing else. That song singlehandedly manages to make this LP worth existing. To me, at least. But you see, I might belong to a minority here, but I do prefer the studio LP. And what <em>is</em> it, do you ask?</p>

<p>The basic idea here was to divide the record in four parts, and each member of the band would be the sole responsible for one part; that is, in the composing and performing departments. And knowing that the band was in its most "avantgarde ROCKS" era ever, it's reasonable to conclude that this is one of the strangest, most curious items in the band's official catalogue. Since each member was completely on his own (only Nick was aided a bit by his wife, who plays woodwinds - yes, he cheated), they mainly took their time and space to develop <em>their own</em> abilities, and to fill up the blanks with weird experimentalism. So, this album will probably be one of two things: a boring, unlistenable mess of experimenta avantgarde crap with a few good stuff in the middle, or an interesting way to enjoy each of the musicians's talents and abilities. Yes, my case is the latter; in particular because this is quite <em>fun</em> stuff. The band didn't take really <em>seriously</em> this experimentation stuff, or so it seems. This was more of an exercise in self-discovery than in self-indulgence.</p>

<p>Let's begin from the beginning. Rick Wright has the first quarter of the album, and his contribution is the four part composition 'Sysyphus', and it is the closest to "serious" avantgarde here. There's quite a lot of classical influence here, and the piece is predominantly atonal, with the exception of the powerful, bombastic main theme that's stated on the short first part, and most of the piano solo that ensues on part 2. That's a great solo, by the way, with Rick first playing some pleasant lines, and developing the piece in one way, before taking a sharp left turn and tearing it apart with dissonant piano bashing. I particularly like the way he holds the sustain pedal and bashes those low notes, making that Earth-shattering piano rumble. That's soon followed by part 3, with its frightening, incredibly intense cacophony of piano, percussion, squealing noises and whatever else he could find. Wow. That's easily one of the freakiest moments Pink Floyd ever released on their albums. Part four carries forth some quiet, atonal but pleasant Mellotron ambience until it's rudely interrupted by a loud, scary chord halfway through, and a slow, painful crescendo that leads to the main theme, which closes the piece. It's <em>quite</em> a bombastic, serious piece, but it's good because Rick's performances are really, really masterful.</p>

<p>The next eleven minutes are taken over by Roger Waters, and he focuses on what would later become an absolute addiction: sound effects. Fortunately, it's used in very clever ways. The seven minutes is a beautiful, pleasant folk song (man! Was Roger Waters getting obsessed with Nick Drake or what?), in which Roger uses sound effects to create the "landscape" in which the song takes place. The result is just wonderful. It isn't even all about the sound effects, because the <em>song</em> itself is beautiful. Roger's laidback guitar playing helps a lot, too. And to frustrate those expecting some actual <em>music</em>, the following track is just a piece made almost entirely of sound effects and tape manipulation. Suffice to say, Waters uses all sorts of sounds and recordings of human speech, and starts yelling some weird verses in a whacked out accent I can't identify (Celtic? Who the heck knows), to create <em>exactly</em> what the song title suggests. Seriously, the only way to get a notion of how this track sounds like is listening to it, I think.</p>

<p>Flipping the side, you meet David Gilmour's 'The Narrow Way', which is definitely much less avantgarde than what came before it. In fact, it only gets a little weird on the second part, when he introduces an ugly guitar riff, and slowly brings it down with sound effects and general tape manipulation. Other than that, you've got a lot of pleasant multi-layered acoustic guitar playing on part one, and... and... an average Pink Floyd tune in part three! Well, with this one, you'll realise who really set down the overall tone for many Pink Floyd songs from here on. This one isn't really a spectacular track - the vocals could be a little higher on the mix, for example, so that you could hear what he's singing - but it's still very good. As for Nick Mason, he brings us 'The Grand Vizier's Garden Party', also divided in three parts. "Entrance" and "Exit" are mainly pieces for solo flute, the latter with beautiful overdubs, and "Entertainment", is where all the, well, fun happens. Those expecting a seven minute long drum solo can relax, because it's <em>not</em>. It only becomes a fast-paced, swinged drum solo near the last minutes. For the rest, it's mainly a lot of tape manipulation. It's not exactly exciting, really, but he has a couple of nifty tricks coming up. For a couple of mintes, there are just some eerie, moody humming melodies going on, until he starts some Morse-code-like percussion effects, synchronising them with the drum solo as it arrives. Clever, but not much more than that. Could have been a lot worse, in fact. It's even a bit weird that I enjoy this record this much. I guess I tend to like experimentation when it's well made, and these guys really had a grip of what they were doing. Okay, they didn't. <em>Some</em> of them did. Whatever. All I know is that this is a clever record. I understand why most people prefer the live album, but if I'm the opposite, should anyone bother?... well, you <em>are</em> reading my reviews, so maybe yes. Eiher way, whether people agree or not if this record is good, it's a must-have for Pink Floyd fans, and a heck of an interestng album, anyway.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Heh, I <em>do</em> enjoy most of the stuff that goes on here.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - It <em>is</em> quite freaky in places, but this is detached experimental music!<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Suppose I can't say much here.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/15</strong></big> - This is generally filled with good stuff.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Well, it's <em>not</em> seamless. But heck, it's quite good when you consider how the album was put together!
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/11.png" alt="11" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Raves? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="mother">Atom Heart Mother (1970)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Summer '68</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Atom Heart Mother <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>If <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Summer '68 ++</span></li>
  <li>Fat Old Sun</li>
  <li>Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p><strong>Ummagumma</strong>, hodgepodgey the way it was, could be considered as a transitional album. Of course, it's hard to tell into what <em>exactly</em> they were transitioning, but at last, this album can be a rough indication of that. The focus is still on <em>art</em>, music as an elaborate artistic statement, but the ways of achieving that have changed considerably. They stop pushing it so hard into the chaotic, the adventurous, the weird and the unknown, and try to settle for the kind of "avantgarde" that other people were already doing: brainy as hell, but less unpredictable. The major attempt at doing something "important" here is the title track, which occupies the entire first side. Musically, it's quite a mess; not in the 'A Saucerful Of Secrets' way, but in the way that the band didn't quite know what to do with it. It's more like an attept at assembling <em>something</em> that sounds like an artistic statement rather than a serious attempt at something specific. But it's quite clear that the band was trying to break away from the ghost of Syd Barrett and their drug-fueled cosmic adventures, not only by the way it sounds, but for the whole package. Storm Thorgerson was asked to go out and find the most radically un-psychedelic picture he could get. And what he got was cows. And a classic album cover, of course. And the title has nothing to do with schizophrenic imagery at all; it was just inspired by a piece of news reporting a woman that received an atomic pacemaker.</p>

<p>With a bit of a stretch, though, you can still use this album as a soundtrack to chemically-induced mind travels or whatever. And I have no idea of successful it might be. What I <em>know</em>, though, is that I like the title track quite a bit. No matter how weakly "assembled" it is, it's filled with beautiful parts. The introductory "main theme", devised by Gilmour (who thought it sounded like a soundtrack for a Western), is definitely a hit. The bits that follow go on a quite up-and-down journey as far as quality is concerned, but it never drops to the point of being annoying. It's quite fun, really. It's just a bit of a shame that the track couldn't be remade, though. See, the song has arrangements for orchestra and choir made by avantgarde musician Ron Geesin, and he was left working on the song as the band went on tour. When they returned, they felt it would be a good idea to rerecord the song entirely, but the label management refused. So, what you get here is quite patchy at times. But it works well enough, and is at least <em>interesting</em>. Like I said, the main theme is magnificent, in paticular the quieter bit with the organ arpeggio, and a plaintive violin solo that sounds like it was <em>made</em> for the song. There's quite a bit of nifty choir work during the crescendo part, with the organ chords, and some <em>weird</em> choir work after the "funky" guitar solo. The only bit of hardcore "weird" avantgardism comes at the sixteenth minute, with a freaky noise fiesta (not quite 'A Saucerful Of Secrets', though), and the return to the main theme with a collage of previous parts of the song, which leads to a glorious, decisive ending. It's a cool song, if only merely indicative of the greater achievements the band would reach in the future.</p>

<p>On the flip side, you get four tracks completely unrelated to each other. The last one, 'Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast', is the band's attempt at doing something <em>really</em> novel, combining the band's music with their growing interest in sound effects and such. The track consists in three separate instrumental music pieces, all sharing that "morning quietness" sound, linked together by sounds of Alan Giles, one of the band's roadies, making breakfast in his house. Gotta admit that's a pretty clever idea, and it's quite neat, actually. The sounds going on are quite evocative, and the way Alan's mumbled lines echo back and forth are quite strange and funny. There's nothing particularly striking about the musical pieces, but they're pleasant and work very well. The coolest part, in my opinion, are the way the initial chords of the first piece synchronize with the matches being struck. Oh, yes, <em>aside</em> from the dripping faucet sound that runs into the inner groove to be played for eternity. And they actually played that live!</p>

<p>The other three tracks are all good, really, each one contributed by one songwriter. Roger Waters keeps on with his folk guitar, and performs the quiet, understated, extremely sad 'If'. In songwriting terms, it's not better than 'Cirrus Minor' or even 'Grantchester Meadows', but the band slowly joins in with a brilliantly beautiful performance. Gilmour follows the sound he more or less started in part 3 of 'The Narrow Way' with 'Fat Old Sun', a nice, beautiful ballad, which eventually dissolves into an excuse for him to play a lengthy, repetitive, meandering guitar solo like only he could do. And Rick Wright brings 'Summer '68', which is easily my favourite song here; beautiful vocal melody, beauitful piano playing, cool shift into a loud, nearly hyperactive chorus with a freaky brass arrangement. The lyrics could go for all I care; while it's a cool twist to hear about how much a one-night-stand sucks, Rick does it in a rather uninspired way, though I don't know whether he wasn't able or he didn't <em>care</em> to make the verses rhyme. Either way, it's the music here that matters, and I like it.</p>

<p>The album as a whole is definitely good, though it is very little indicative of the <em>real</em> stuff that was coming. Point in case is that the band, in particular Roger Waters, doesn't care about it much. I can understand that, but I don't think the record deserves slamming. The fact that it doesn't really compare to the band's best works doesn't diminish its importance, and doesn't make it bad. I find it very good; the only negative thing is that this isn't the kind of record I'd play everyday. But how bad is that, really?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Yes, really, I do enjoy it quite a bit.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>11/10</strong></big> - It's more evocative, but still too clumsy to cause an impression.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/10</strong></big> - Can't question its creativity, though it isn't too innovative.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>13/10</strong></big> - Hey, what do you know? Plenty of good stuff here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>11/10</strong></big> - They still had a lot to improve in this aspect.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/12.png" alt="12" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Rants? "<strong>AHM</strong> sucks" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="meddle">Meddle (1971)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Echoes</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">One Of These Days ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">A Pillow Of Winds ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Fearless ++</span></li>
  <li>San Tropez <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Seamus</li>
  <li><span class="good">Echoes ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Perhaps this is the album that the fans of the "classic Floyd" were all waiting for? That's understandable, though I have to resist the urge to call this a "breakthrough" and settle down to defining it as the natural evolution from <strong>Atom Heart Mother</strong>. After all, this isn't like the band suddenly, out of nothing, became fantastic and made a fantastic record. This is the <em>same</em> band as before, just tightening up their skills, finding better, more concise ways of delivering their musical ideas. That makes a lot of difference, though, and in the end, it seems irrelevant that this album is just an improvement on their previous efforts. For one, the structure is similar to <strong>Atom Heart Mother</strong>: one side filled with shorter songs, and a single composition taking up the other side entirely. And here, the second side is occupied by 'Echoes'. Alright, to be direct, I'll say it right away: 'Echoes' is my favourite single Pink Floyd composition. Like 'Atom Heart Mother', it has a main theme - albeit with lyrics - which is developed mainly in the beginning and the end. But the several defferent sections of the song are all worked extremelly well, and they flow seamlessly into each other, which really makes the whole thing sound like one big song, and not like a patchwork of musical ideas; to the point where I can't just regard it as a song stretched with instrumental breaks and whatever. To me, it's a perfectly solid song, and the guitar/organ duo, the dark section of noisemaking with the scraping guitar shrieks and the animal noises, and the gradual building back into the main theme do nothing but complement the already gorgeous, evocative song. And that's not to mention the classic intro; you know, the piano note ran through a Leslie speaker was the very genesis of the whole track. But the entire intro sounds like it's raising from the darkness, like a dead person coming back to like, or something. It's not a scary song, but it's definitely eerie, in a cool sort of way.</p>

<p>The shorter songs, while they might not necessarily be an improvement, are all good and packed very tightly, actually. In here, there's no "separation of jobs" anymore. Waters and Gilmour, as collaborators, are the ones who mainly deliver the goods. The band's best effort on here is the instrumental 'One Of These Days', which went down in history as a classic. Deservedly so. It's quite possibly the most psychotic Pink Floyd song ever, but it's psychotic in a way to be goofy, menacing and exciting, all at the same time, kind of. The song has a lot of dynamics, be it when Wright throws those whooshing keyboard effects over the one note bass riff (both Gilmour and Waters!), or when David throws his guitar chords over it, or when it switches into that monster-like bass effect, or when it finally takes off into a full band performance. The song's brilliantly written, put together with very simple elements that don't seem to do much on their own. I suppose that's the real genius of the band, by that time: making a lot with very little.</p>

<p>All the other four songs are "traditional" songs, and Waters is already abandoning his Folk fetish. It's only somewhat present in the two following tracks. I love both of them, really, to the point where I can't even pick a favourite. 'A Pillow Of Winds' is just gorgeous, though. To be honest, there isn't a whole lot going on in terms of melody or lyrics, but I'm just a sucker for those layered acoustic guitar, and Gilmour's tasteful slide. They make the song sound <em>just</em> like what the title suggests, especially since it builds on top of the wind sounds from the previous track. It has been a favourite of mine right since the beginning. But 'Fearless' isn't at all worse. So far, this is the closest to an "ideal" pop ballad that Waters and Gilmour got so far, and <em>with</em> a great vocal melody, this time around, as well as a classic ascending riff. The football chants at the end don't do much to me, but I just let them get by. They don't bother me, especially since the song is so good.</p>

<p>The two final songs are reason for much frowning for the fans, but I have nothing to complain about them. Really. Even 'Seamus' is fine where it is, as a nice comic relief to finish the side. As far as generic blues go, these guys can handle it pretty well. But then again, the song's just a fun excuse to showcase the talents of the dog, that howled every time he heard the harmonica. Dog blues isn't something people thought a lot about back in those days, was it? I can't understand how people can neglect such an innovative, revolutionary composition like 'Seamus'. As for 'San Tropez', it's not so original, but it <em>is</em> a nifty, pleasant song with Waters sounding somewhat happy for the last time in his carreer, or so it seems. I always enjoy listening to it, when I play the album. A nice thing about this album is that it's balanced. There's its fair bit of seriousness, but there's also the occasional release of tension, which makes this a very pleasant, friendly listen. It might be a contradiction, but this isn't the most <em>accessible</em> Floyd record. I guess it's exactly those tension releases that might put certain people off - in particular those who expect something like <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong>. Either way, this is an important step for the evolution of the band, and it is one of my favourite Floyd albums ever. There's just the overall feel of <em>relevance</em> that lacks in future Floyd releases, but sometimes, relevance just isn't what I'm looking for. Right?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Damn close to a 15 this is.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Crazy am I? This is evocative stuff!<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Very creative. Doesn't build much on the band's legacy to this point, though.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Perfect? Not really.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - I kid you not. I enjoy everything here.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/14.png" alt="14" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Raves? Criticism? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="clouds">Obscured By Clouds (1972)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Wots... Uh The Deal</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Obscured By Clouds <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>When You're In <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Burning Bridges <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Gold It's In The...</li>
  <li><span class="good">Wots... Uh The Deal ++</span></li>
  <li>Mudmen <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Childhood's End <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Free Four ++</span></li>
  <li>Stay</li>
  <li>Absolutely Curtains</li>
</ol>

<p>If the previous albums, <strong>Medddle</strong> included, didn't showcase huge talents in tight, consistent songwriting (as in short, vocal songs), this album came to change that. It's another soundtrack, to another obscure Barbet Schroeder movie (<em>La Val&eacute;e</em>), but this one hardly sounds like it. Aside from its four instrumental tracks, it sounds like a normal album of normal Pink Floyd songs - which isn't very usual, mind you. But really, in terms of structure and material, this album has virtually <em>nothing</em> to do with the soundtrack for <em>More</em>.It's much closer to the "new" style of Floyd, represented mainly by <strong>Meddle</strong>, and already predates a lot of stuff that would be featured in their next album - you know which one.</p>

<p>For one, this album has six vocal songs, and they are <em>all</em> good. Not all of them being 'Fearless' level, but none of them below 'Fat Old Sun' level. And they actually form a really nice, tight package of tunes, and guess what, the instrumentals really help improve the picture. To begin with, the opening pair of tracks is something of a small gem, in the band's catalogue. The title track opens up the album with an amazing, somewhat scary, somewhat eerie picture formed by simple, monotonously humming and growling synthesizers, an electronic-sounding drum rhythm, and Gilmour providing short, economic licks on the guitar. It's more impressive when you listen to it than when you read about it, trust me. Soon enough, 'When You're In' kicks in, maintaining the same atmosphere somewhat, but bringing a heavy, simple and to-the-point pounding riff. The instruments playing in unison is definitely cool.</p>

<p>But that's only the intro. After it, you'll find excellent ballads, like 'Burning Bridges', which features a clever,beautiful descending melody. It's later reprised on the instrumental 'Mudmen', a tortoise-paced song with great keyboard work. Very, very pleasant and atmospheric, that one. Rick also contributes 'Stay', which musically isn't too strong, but features more lyrics about unusual man-and-woman relationships. The best one is definitely Gilmour's 'Wots... Uh The Deal', which in spite of its odd title, <em>is</em> one of my favourite Floyd songs. 'Wish You Were Here' fans should give this one a chance. Wonderful melody, and even wonderful lyrics which express loneliness in a very touching way. I particularly like the line "Mile after mile, stone after stone, you turn to speak but you're alone" for whatever reason. Beautiful song, anyway.</p>

<p>On the side of the non-ballads, Gilmour also contributes 'Childhood's End', a bitter, quite angry song that fans of 'Time' might find notorious, right from the start: its intro with gradually emerging synth chords soon leads into a "clock-ticking" sound that's definitely quite similar to that one of 'Time'. Even the rhythm is quite similar, but the song itself is different. It's quite good, I think. On the other hand, 'The Gold It's In The...' is a funny stab at hard rock, with David throwing in a really good guitar solo at the end. The most interesting effort here is Waters's 'Free Four', a jangly, upbeat tune with bitter lyrics about a dying man. You know, if 'San Tropez' was the last time Roger sounded genuinely happy, this is quite possibly the last time when he sounded <em>humourous</em>, at least in Pink Floyd. It's a brilliant song, and not only because of the lyrical message: the melody is very catchy and fun.</p>

<p>The only moment when the album shows itself as soundtrackish is at the very final song, with 'Absolutely Curtains', that <em>seems</em> like it's a "closing credits" song. It's mainly keyboard ambience, with some slow crescendos and small climaxes, and a long coda with an aboryginal chant, extracted from the movie. It doesn't work very well as anything but atmosphere, and it contrasts with the material that comes before it, but I don't mind it. At least I <em>learnt</em> not to mind it. And come to think of it, that chant at the end is a quite sad thing to hear. Either way, movie soundtrack ambience isn't the best thing about the album; which is not odd, when you consider that this album was made very quickly. That's a good thing, because it gave the band the opportunity to write actual <em>songs</em>, instead of worrying so much with the production and the effects and the stuff. It's a very, very nice record, a very pleasant listen and, dare I say it, one of the most accessible Floyd albums you can find. I can recommend it to those who aren't big fans of the more experimenta, weird side of Floyd. And I also recommend it to the fans, who neglect it on the grounds of it being a soundtrack. Just don't miss it.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Very good songs, here.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - It doesn't have the classic Floyd ways of creating images and whatnot, but the music is <em>genuine</em>.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Not a whole lot of new stuff, but the band is still creative.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Most stuff here is very, very well written.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Not much to complain. Very few songs sound out of place.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/12.png" alt="12" />
</p>

<p>Comments? "gilmour rox lol peace dude" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me now</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="moon" class="best">Dark Side Of The Moon (1973)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <em>The whole thing.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Speak To Me / Breathe ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">On The Run ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Time / Breathe (reprise) ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Great Gig In The Sky ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Money ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Us And Them ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Any Colour You Like ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Brain Damage ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Eclipse ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>In case you're not aware already, you should get prepared for <em>a lot</em> of raving and ranting ahead. See, it's not at all because the historical importance of the album, or because how long it has been in the charts, or because how many people love the album to death, or whatever. The thing between me and this album is <em>strictly personal</em>, because it has hit my nerves in very special ways right since the first time I heard it. No, wait... I'm not sure about the <em>first</em> time, but there was a certain moment that I realsed this album was just something different. Not as a unique, completely unusual item that sounded like nothing else in the world. It was the way it affected me, you know. And from then on, it was just a matter of listening to it over and over and being immersed on that amazing world of sound.</p>

<p>And with that bit of personal rambling, I just described exactly what's the big deal about this album: "world of sound". With <strong>Meddle</strong>, Pink Floyd more or less found out their interest in creating sonic landscapes, or whatever you call it. And that style of music making makes much of the basis for this record. The band finally found just the <em>perfect</em> combination between the sounds of their instruments to create an ensemble that's just... well, I can't think of any word other than "otherworldly". Nick Mason now sticks to that slow, gentle tapping style that makes the "typical" Floyd rhythm from now on, and over that, Rick Wright and David Gilmour lay their smooth, fluid duetting. I tell you it's pure bliss to hear the soft electric piano chords on one channel, and the rhythm guitar on the other, soundng like one, solid body. That, to me, is a triumph. Also, they discovered interesting uses for the VCS3 synthesizer, which almost all of them play here. Combined with the usual keyboards, Farfisa organs and whatever else, the sonic pallete the band assembled here is rich and impressive. It also helps that the songs weren't all put out in one batch, but were already being perfected in live shows from that time. So, the songwriting <em>and</em> the performances help to make the album very consistent.</p>

<p>But anyway, there are mainly two things that make this album transcend any barrier that had been blocking Pink Floyd albums from absolute superstardom. First of them is the lyrics, which are all written by Roger Waters. Once and for all, he took the responsibility for himself, which allowed the band to make their first, full-fledged concept album, and eventually one of the greatest, most successful concept albums in history. For one, he doesn't talk about war, aside from a side comment on 'Us And Them'. The main focus here is in all sorts of ugly things that can potentially turn a man insane - probably inspired by the destiny of his friend, Syd Barrett. As you can see, it's not a very focused concept, and the album touches <em>various</em> topics surrounding that theme - some of them are obvious judging by the song title. The real "concept" here, though, is how these topics and songs are linked to each other, and make a bigger sense when taken as a whole. Taken alone, Waters's lyrics don't necessarily display "genius", and at certain points even sound pretty clich&eacute;d and, dare I say it, silly. But I won't be the dorky dude to point out that "The lunatic is in my head" could have been written by a five year old, and I'll say that it's the sense of meaning that makes this album look so ahead of the previous Pink Floyd albums. One thing is to have a "masterpiece about nothing" (<strong>Meddle</strong>), and another entirely different thing is to have a masterpiece with an actual meaning. <em>And</em> this album would be mainly a launchpad for Roger to start investing on his talent as a lyricist. Which is good.</p>

<p>The big advantage is that the lyrics aren't central to the album. They aren't even central to the concept. The album also delivers its messages with music, sound effects, speeches, and other kinds of sonic tricks. And that's what I mean with the album being a world of sound: you might listen to the album as a collection of simple, half-baked songs with a layer of "sounds" on top, but that's not how <em>I</em> take it. This album is a masterpiece in creating a picture with sounds, to the point where there isn't any kind of strict separation between what is "music" and what is just "sound". Sound becomes music, and music itself is reduced to a simple combination of sounds. The way the songs are constructed and combined makes me even hesitate in speaking in terms of "songs". The album is a solid piece, and I can only view it as such, really. And through the entire album, the band's playing and the sound effects give an incredible dimension and deepness to the music. It's really like diving headfirst into a bottomless ocean of sound. I believe Alan Parson's work as sound engineer was a crucial element in making this album work so well, but the band deserves a lot of credit for their clever uses of sound, innovative techniques, and the clever meth od of interviewing people - that is, placing them before a microphone in a darkened room and making questions simply showing flashcards. Those interviews granted them with memorable bits of speech, like the "I've been mad for fucking years" which opens the album, the bit about death on 'The Great Gig In The Sky', the superimposed lines about getting in a fight and being "in the right" at the end of 'Money' ("I don't know, I was very drunk at the time"), classic lines like "Live for today, gone tomorrow, that's me" and "There's no dark side of the moon, really; matter of fact it's all dark", and the glorious laughter that pops up in several places through the album. Everything is part of the experience, you know; dismiss any of that as silly gimmickry, and the album's not for you.</p>

<p>And anyway, how you're supposed to think of track like 'On The Run' as one big piece of gimmickry and be expected to enjoy the rest of the album? Of course you can just not like it, but I <em>do</em> think it's a cool, hypnotic piece, with all those different sounds, underpinned by the constant, unforgettable synth loop, forming a haze inside my brain.It's not quite the feeling of being <em>mad</em>, but very close to those moments of near-paranoia when you can't think straight not even for a split second. They do that very well, you know, eventually culminating with the crashing airplane. I'm surprised that I never heard about anyone using that song as an allegory of the World Trade Center incident. I think that's a pretty obvious "stupid thing to say", but I never heard it. Instead, I heard about how Bloodrock's 'D.O.A.' was "the ultimate 9/11 song". HUH?! What are those people? <em>Stupid</em>? Oh, dear. Anyway, if you think I'm being extremelly inadequate in bringing this topic here, you're right, and I'm doing this intentionally. After all, if people already took their time to do some "United 93" movie and cash in on the event, why can't <em>I</em> be obnoxious too? They didn't even catch Osama yet! MORONS! You can see <em>my house</em> on Google Earth, and they didn't find the guy yet? Man.</p>

<p>Either way, 'On The Run' is the only track in which the sound effects might definitely get in the way of the music, aside from the opening collage of sounds ('Speak To Me') which makes an introductory crescendo that works as a nice warning of what's about to come - it's also pretty freaky to realise how scary Clare Torry's singing sounds when taken out of context. More on that later. And then, you have all the, ahem, songs that more-or-less make the bulk of the album. Whatever I've said about the album working as a whole, without the compositions, this album would be at best an "experimental" Frank Zappa wannabe pseudo intellectual's delight. <em>With</em> the compositions, it's Floyd's defining moment. <strong>Obscured By Clouds</strong> showed the band's potential as songwriters, and <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> puts that potential to good use. As a result, you have classics like 'Time', which is just plainly gorgeous, switching from more agressive verses with David's singing into quieter, pleasant choruses with Rick's soft singing and beautiful backing vocals. I admit that David's guitar solo's here is, quite frankly, a pain. Yeah, it gets pretty melodic when he hits the chorus, but otherwise, it just meanders on and on with that "rocking" distorted sound at snail pace. The doubletracking effect is cool, but other than that? Pfah. Fortunately, I can just get lost in the gorgeous sound of it. And anyway, there's always the unforgettable intro to counter it all. Say whatever you wish, but I'm a <em>sucker</em> for that intro, with the clock effect, the deep, loud chords and Nick Mason's calculated playing on the rototoms (that is, toms that you can tune by rotating the top). It's brilliant, it's clever, <em>and</em> it features the disturbing, nearly-obnoxious symphony of ringing clocks at the beginning.</p>

<p>Maybe unsurprisingly, Rick Wright contributes two stunning compositions. The first of them is 'The Great Gig In The Sky', an entirely instrumental interpretation of death which doesn't need any sung words whatsoever. Rick's piano, the occasional slide guitar and bass is absolutely sufficient - that is, until it takes off into an intense, dramatic middle section with Clare Torry's frenzied singing topping it off. I fail trying to find words to describe it. Suffice to say, it's one of my favourite tracks on the album. There's an interesting story, taken from a Totally Reliable Source&trade;, telling that Clare felt she really went over-the-top in one of the takes, burst into the recording booth apologising for such a terrible take. That take is the one they used in the album. A confirmed story is that she went through a court battle to get credits for the song - which <em>is</em> fully deserved, and did happen in the latter releases of the album. Think of it: the song wouldn't be half of what it is without her. His second contribution is 'Us And Them', which is the definitive culmination of his watery sound. It's all about that interesting chord progression he plays on the organ, David's perfect guitar arpeggios and his short, echoey vocal deliveries, which eventually erupt into loud, intense choruses. The lyrics are Waters', of course. Dick Parry also contributes a fine, fine pair of saxophone solos here.</p>

<p>Of course, I can't stay without mentioning 'Money', which features the band's best bass riff ever, and the awesome use of sound effects as perfectly synchronised percussion instruments. Mason's snappy drumming and the jazzy, unexpected rhythm makes the song pretty unique in their repertoire, and the way David's guitar and Rick's electric piano play ping-pong on the speakers is really entertaining. The instrumental break features a great band performance and Dick Parry's sax, but unfortunately, there's another annoying, uninspired guitar solo in it. I mean, what's the possible excuse for playing the same lick <em>three times</em> in a single solo? Oh, come on. Other than that, the song is brilliant - and like I said, the band's performance saves it, as do all the other great elements in it. There's also Roger's 'Brain Damage', which retains a bit of his folky style, in special in the verses, and leads into the glorious, climatic ending of 'Eclipse' - which U2 ripped-off for 'Walk On', *nudge nudge*. There are also other things that I didn't mention, like 'Breathe', that forms the album's main recurring theme, and the spaced-out instrumental 'Any Colour You Like', with a title borrowed from the old Ford advert: "You can have any car you like in any colour you like, as long as it's Model T and it's black." But it's more important to have a grasp on what the album represents, and what it stands for, than getting down into every detail. After all, you can always read other articles and texts about it, and, you know, you can always LISTEN to it, in case you haven't already. Either way, it's not a question of liking Pink Floyd or not; this is a record you <em>must</em> know, and if you want to be drastic, it's a record you must own. Want it or not. It is <em>that</em> relevant, you know, and that's something you'll have to accept. You can still feel the effects of this album even today, and you can still see it being worshipped everywhere by all sorts of people. The record breaks barries of time, space, technology... heck, even culture. Or do you think Johnny Rotten <em>really</em> hated the band?</p>

<p>Okay, go ahead and call me a lunatic, or a fanatic, or both. I don't care. I have no problems in giving this album a rating bigger than the maximum, in spite of all its "glaring" flaws and problems. This album is an amazing accomplishment, in terms of music <em>and</em> in terms of technical innovations, which match some of the Beatles' experiments. Can you even call this album "experimental"? I know I can't. After all, experimenting means "trying the possibilities". And eventually, producing an experimental record means showing to the world all your possibilities and what you can do with them. Pink Floyd doesn't show their possibilities here: they <em>put them to good use</em>. As such, the record is the result of a series of successful experiments, but also a work of labour and care. And it totally matches my tastes, which <em>is</em> the definitive reason why it gets such a rating. After all, I don't deny the Beatles' importance, for example, but you don't hear me shattering the world with my bombastic statements of how much I love them. <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> is a different matter entirely. And if you think it's just me contributing to the hype, go read my review for Mike Oldfield's <strong>Amarok</strong>. Find it for yourself. I won't give the link here.</p>

<p>I only lament the fact that I don't have the original artwork for it. I don't own it on vinyl, which is a travesty, and the CD edition I have has that "remixed" cover, without the cool "backwards prism" at the back. But the CD itself, as an item, is something that I treasure dearly, since it's argueably the best Christmas gift I ever got.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>15/15</strong></big> - I don't think I need to say anything here, do I?<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - <em>This</em> is resonance, man. I can even feel my brain vibrate when it plays.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>14/15</strong></big> - It's only not totally original in the musical aspect, but everywhere else...<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>15/15</strong></big> - Everything here is brilliant. Really.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>15/15</strong></big> - It <em>is</em> the album I use to define solidness, actually.
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Bonuses:     <strong>+1</strong></big>    - It deserves it. It transcends ratings.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/16.png" alt="16" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:kartikeyam03@IIMB.ERNET.IN">Misra Kartikeya</a> (January 23, 2005):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Yeah it sucks... it does.....and you do overrate it ....</p> 

<p>Why? Cause it gets boring...you can't listen to these songs over and over again...unlike "<strong>Revolver</strong>", "<strong>Sticky Fingers</strong>" and all...Cause the melodies have been substituted by a pretentious, "serious-sounding" atmosphere....and you're an absolute jerk for docking points of <strong>Revolver</strong> cause it gets too serious (yup the apocalyptic "And your bird can sing" should make everyone shake in their boots <span class="edNote">[editor's note: hey, but 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is <em>exactly</em> like that. If that one isn't serious, I don't know what is]</span>)...Man, get a grip...</p> 

<p>Anyways, I hate this album more 'cause I hate Roger Waters' stupidity (Mom, Dad, the damned world, all bad, all tried to push Pinky into the Wall, see) than the actual quality of the songs...But still, there are a few gems....Specially "Us and them", the brilliant poignancy of the song shows what Floyd could (and should) have been....And "Time" is wonderful too, in a very British way, with its nice atmosphere based around the regret of having not trying hard enough in life (though The Kinks wrote probably 10 numbers better than this on the same theme)....The remaining numbers (except the totally wasted "Great gig.." and "On the run") are bearable too....</p> 

<p>So, give this a solid 7 from me.....A mediocre album from a mediocre band.....Oh and they did outshine themselves sometimes: just listen to the next two efforts....</p>
</div>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:awoehrel@netcarrier.com">Andrew Woehrel</a> (January 29, 2005):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p><strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong>-<big>9</big><br />
Best Song- Us And Them<br />
Goddamn, I am sick of Floyd. The most overrated band ever, the most flaccid, weak, energy-lacking performers outside of Sigur Ros on valium. They wrote about one recognizable riff, their vocalists are either nasal and annoying (Waters) or dreary and boring, (Gilmour) their rhythm section is weak and they usually used studio musicians because they weren't skilled enough to play anything on The Wall (Mason). They're known for sound effects, pretentiousness, concepts, and ceaseless bitching, but not for their music, Roger Waters is the most despicable jerk musician outside of Robert Fripp, David Gilmour is a money-grubber who makes money from fanatical Floyd fans,(more on those later) and has about the most boring guitar style imaginable. I'm surprised that he even played guitar live, I would imagine they'd lip-and-guitar sync their performances. Rick Wright's cool though.<br />
And their fans? Lazy stoners who think Roger Water's lyrics are "totally deep" and think they're fighting the man when they're sucking on their bongs and fucking their sisters. Pink Floyd are the art rock band for idiots. They play slow, boring, processed arena rock, soaked in pretension and capped off with a fucking lame guitar solo that's supposed to be expressive but sounds more like tedious time in the studio spent to make the most marketable "gorgeous" guitar solo possible.<br />
But you know what? <strong>Dark Side</strong>'s pretty good, so it gets a 9.</p>
</div>

<p>Comments? Rants? "<strong>Dark Side</strong> is overrated" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="here">Wish You Were Here (1975)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Shine On You Crazy Diamond</big><em>, all nine parts.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li><span class="good">Shine On You Crazy Diamond, parts I to V ++</span></li>
  <li>Welcome To The Machine</li>
  <li>Have A Cigar <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Wish You Were Here <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Shine On You Crazy Diamond, parts VI to IX ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>The bad thing about reaching your peak is that, well, it's downhill from there. And the disturbing thing is that, somehow, the band knew that <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> <em>was</em> their peak. They were having to deal with a lot of tension and pressure during that time, and this album reflects that. It was a sort of band decision to make their next record a sort of self-referential concept album, with part of it as a reference to the music industry and the way it deals with artists, and most of it dedicated to Syd Barrett - who actually appeared in the studio, by the time it was being made. Yes, this is the record that contains the longest Floyd composition ever, 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond', which was split into two tracks in order to fit in the record. I named 'Echoes' as my favourite single Pink Floyd track ever, but taken as a whole 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' is every bit as good as that one. This time, the band didn't use sonic panoramas and landscapes to create the song, and almost all of it can be described as a Floyd-flavoured blues.</p>

<p>And all of it is gorgeous. Even though the song initially <em>was</em> a single track, it's pretty clear that the first five parts flow much more seamlessly, while the second half is made up of four parts that don't sound at all like each other. Either way, the first three parts or so feature mainly Gilmour and Wright exchanging solos, one on the guitar, the other on a Moog synthesizer. This piece has some of my favourite Gilmour solos, in fact. I guess the song's solemn, slow sound allows him to play his slow, solemn solos without sounding artificial. Still, Rick Wright's synth work is far better, and I can't imagine these solos being played in another way. They're the finest example of solos that sound "previous written" without lacking spontaneity. This part also features the famous, four note "Syd's Theme",which just fits the song like a glove. Part four is when the lyrics come in, and reportedly this is the only place where you'll hear Roger, David <em>and</em> Rick singing together. Needless to say, it's gorgeous, and Roger's lyrics definitely hit a nerve in me. Immediately after them, comes Dick Parry's sax soloing, which leads the piece into a tense finale, which is brought back for the sixth part, on the flipside. Interestingly, I always preferred that second half somewhat. Part seven is just the final verse, and part eight is a cool, but not very impressive funkish synth jam,but it does have my favourite bits: part six, which is the heaviest, most intense moments in the album, featuring Roger's insistent bass riff and some really loud, really high lap steel soloing by David. But the highlight, for me, is the final part, credited solely to Wright. The music considerably slows down and turns into a lengthy, weepy, gorgeous synth solo over a subtle, mellow backing by his piano, Roger's bass and drums. With each verse, the backing grows a little, eventually being joined by Gilmour's slide guitar, and ending with a glorious major key, as if finally resolving the entire song, which was on a minor key. Careful listeners will hear a snippet of 'See Emily Play' being played on Wright's synth as the song ends. Very clever, that.</p>

<p>That song takes up more than half of the record, you know. And that's good, because you'll know more than half of the album's great by default. And I recommend you to take the two tracks as one composition, seeing that they could easily be edited into one single track. The other tracks, though, are no slouch. One of them is the classic title track, one of the band's gentlest, most beautiful ballads, devoted a bit to Syd and a bit to themselves. The main guitar theme is one of David's best contributions to the band, and the main vocal melody and lyrics only help make things more beautiful. You know, maybe it is a bit overrated, especially since the big thing about Pink Floyd wasn't radio-friendly pop ballads. But so what? It's a beautiful song, either way. I also like 'Have A Cigar', Roger's "tribute" to record company executives, featuring vocals by Roy Harper, who was recording on a studio nearby around that time. Neither Roger nor David could do a good take, after straining their voices for 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond', and Roger reportedly regrets not having sung the track. I mean, I don't find it a <em>highlight</em>, but it's a cool, groovy, funky song, and features another solid, mean guitar solo; not to mention that synth riff, which is just awesome. As for 'Welcome To The Machine', it sounds a bit obvious, you know. But the use of sound effects is clever (in particular the "lift", in the beginning of the song, which takes you down to the actual machine), and the music builds tension and intensity very, very well as it goes. The ascending line, played on the acoustic guitar in the middle break, is something of a classic. I admit I'm not a fan of the song, but it fits the album and works very well in context.</p>

<p>But then again, what <em>is</em> the context? Roger moaning about how much record executives suck? Hmm, yes, but that's more like a small part of the album. The real theme of the album is absence, and not just the absence of Syd Barrett. It's like the kind of absence portrayed in the album's artwork. Oh, and by the way, this album has my favourite Pink Floyd album artwork, done by Hipgnosis, obviously. It's all about the burning guy, you know. I couldn't think of a better album cover, myself. I had that album on vinyl, once, but I gave it back because there was a little scratch on the beginning of side one which made it skip - that is, the annoying "backwards skip", if you understand me.That was a dumb thing to do, I know. This is an album I really, really like. It might sound a bit crazy to give <strong>Meddle</strong> a higher rating, but you shouldn't face it as a big thing. <strong>Wish You Were Here</strong> is excellent, but I prefer the former's musical and textural richness to the latter's "conceptuality". But it's not like it makes much of a difference, in the end.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>14/15</strong></big> - Not a single weak moment.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - For one, Pink Floyd leaves the realm of "sound coolness" and reaches actual emotional ressonance. Only in a few places, though.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/15</strong></big> - There's not a lot of <em>new</em> stuff here, is there? Pretty authentic, still.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>14/14</strong></big> - Great music, mainly.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>14/14</strong></big> - Really, really solid. Not that that's too surprising.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:awoehrel@netcarrier.com">Andrew Woehrel</a> (June 20, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>
<strong>Wish You Were Here</strong>-1975, Capitol<br />
Best song: Wish You Were Here<br />
Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part 1)<span class="good">+</span><br />
Welcome To The Machine<span class="bad">&times;</span><br />
Have a Cigar<span class="bad">&times;</span><br />
<span class="good">Wish You Were Here++</span><br />
Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part 2)<span class="good">+</span>
</p>
 
<p>Where does a band go after releasing their biggest album? For most bands, they try to make another, and fall flat on their face. I've decided, that the best thing to do, after creating your best album yet, is to TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Beatles understood this. None of the Beatle's albums are ripoffs of their others, except maybe for <strong>Magical Mystery Tour</strong>, but that album is much more cohesive and has some much better songs on it than MOST of <strong>Sgt. Pepper's</strong>, (except for Day In The Life, of course. Masterpiece. Not even I Am The Walrus, or Strawberry Fields Forever are as good.) But where were we? Oh yes. Floyd tries to make <strong>Dark Side Of the Moon 2</strong>, and, they fail. Shine On You Crazy Diamond is a beautiful song, as is Wish You Were Here, but I don't like the other two. There's NOTHING redeemable about Welcome To The Machine. Roger's vocals are atrocious, the synths are horrible, etc.  What the hell? This band made "Us and Them" 2 years ago!! Have a Cigar is just as dumb, with an unmemorable, hookless melody, dumb vocals and lyrics, and you know a guitar solo must suck if you hear people talking about the solo in a song, but you never noticed it was there. Shine On You Crazy Diamond is a little too mellow and samey for 20 minutes to be one of the best songs ever, but it's at least GOOD. and Wish You Were Here is gorgeous. It saves the album from being a shitload. Pretty acoustic guitarwork, heartfelt vocal delivery, and one of Roger's best lyrical moments, a worthy ode to Mr. Barrett.<br />
All in all, the pretentiousness outweighs the beauty. This album proves both that it's hard to make an album after your masterpiece, and that Roger Waters is pathetic when pissed off.<br />
<big><big>7/10</big></big></p>
</div>

<p>Comments? Random blabberings? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="animals">Animals (1977)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Pigs (Three Different Ones)</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Pigs On The Wing, part 1</li>
  <li><span class="good">Dogs ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Pigs (Three Different Ones) ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Sheep ++</span></li>
  <li>Pigs On The Wing, part 2</li>
</ol>

<p>Say whatever you want, <strong>Wish You Were Here</strong> was the end of Pink Floyd as we knew it. And the band knew it, as well. We can only speculate about the reasons, but the fact is that the band was completely open and ready for Roger Waters to assume full leadership and creative control over it. And this album already shows it; having the whole concept and lyrics by Roger Waters is nothing new, but of these five tracks, only 'Dogs' is credited to both him and Gilmour. All the others are Waters compositions. You know, at this point, it doesn't make <em>that</em> much of a difference. The only clearly noticeable change is in the overall sound of the album. The production no longer values that profound, oceanic sound, and instead brings everything upfront and makes it all clear and crisp to-the-max. You have less piano and organ, and more guitars; less atmospheric balladeering, and more actual rock. The songs are all multipart, more intricate than usual, but you know what? I still don't call this "Progressive Rock". Just listen to the album once and you'll understand why, but this is what I call "<em>Agressive</em> Rock". I know it's a lame pun, but I can't think of any other way to describe this.</p>

<p>The titles of the songs more or less say everything, but the deal is that Roger was inspired by Orwell's <em>Animal Farm</em> when making this album. So, instead of pitying and sulking on the band's condition, he chooses to plainly use animals to make a bitter, angry allegory on the whole world. And each of the three categories, as you can see, is represented by a song - with the two-part acoustic ballad 'Pigs On The Wing' framing the whole thing. You know, the song doesn't have much to do with the concept directly, since it's dedicated to Roger's wife. Yes, it only gets actually happy on the second part, so it feels like a "relief" from the weight of the world Roger put on his back, but hey... it's still an "unrelated" thing, but what do I care? It's a fine song, and the three main tracks are where the action happens, anyway. I have no choice but to talk about them separately, okay? I know it's boring, but there isn't anything else I can do, since the three songs are all very different from each other. The most I can say is that, over these years, I realised that 'Pigs' is my favourite song in here. It's got something to do with the eerie organ riff that opens it, that completely mean groove the song is built in, Roger's singing and the awesome instrumental break, with David using a voice box on the guitar to give it a "piggy" sound. But in the end, the best thing is the combination of those elements, which makes a very hard-hitting, memorable and entertaining song. Oh, yes, and it namechecks one Mary Whitehouse, a censor of rock music at that time. It's particularly cool, since she had tried to censor Pink Floyd in the past, and Roger shows no fear at all and viciously trashes her - "and do you feel abused?". Heh heh.</p>

<p>The other two songs are actually reworked from previous Pink Floyd songs, which were performed in concerts, and were intended to be recorded for <strong>Wish You Were Here</strong>. The first one is 'Dogs', based on David's 'You Gotta Be Crazy', which here turns into a "homage" to the cutthroat capitalists of the world. The song is mostly slow and bluesy, giving David the opportunity to engage in several solos. The coolest bit is the "drowning" middle part, with one word echoed on and on and distorted over time, and Rick doing a weird synth solo over it. Now is that the atmosphere Pink Floyd used to show us? Why, certainly! It's not like the rest of the track is not good, but that passage especially great because it's adequate, and serves as a counterpoint for the tense, climactic finale, which to me always sounded like the "dog" being tortured to death by Roger's words. "Who was born in a house full of pain?" Man,that must have resonated with a lot of people out there, I figure. But then again, I'm just guessing.</p>

<p>The final song, 'Sheep', might be the fastest, heaviest song the band released since... well, since 'One Of These Days', or maybe 'Money'. The "verses" are a classic, with the interplay of Rick's organ and David's chugging distorted guitar, and Roger extending the notes he sings until they are transformed into weird synth notes. But the song wouldn't be so cool if it didn't have quieter, slower sections, like the middle-break with one of the band's roadies reciting a parody on the Psalm 23. His voice is distorted by a vocoder, which gives it an eerie, cool sound; shame that we can't understand his words very well. But the instrumentation is very cool as well, with vague synth notes reminiscent of 'One Of These Days', and a gradual build-up to the final verse, which eventually erupts with a grandiose, victorious-sounding guitar climax. Though I wonder what's supposed to be so victorious, since even though Roger tells us "heard the news? The dogs are dead!", the sheep just go on being every bit as blind and weak as they always were. Hey... maybe that <em>is</em> a good thing, for some people. Heh heh.

<p>It's also a bit ironic that 'Dogs', which is dedicated to the vicious and greedy hunters, is slower and quieter, while 'Sheep', which describes the pathetic and meek people, is one of Pink Floyd's fastest and heaviest songs. But that isn't too important, is it? It took me a while to fully appreciate the record, for some reason, but maybe it had to do with the reduced importance of Rick Wright in the band - which would go down to near zero (... oh, okay, absolute zero) in the next album. But then again, even though the give tracks complete each other conceptually, they are a bit isolated from each other - the complete opposite of <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong>, as you might guess. So, this album doesn't score as high as their previous ones, but hey... it <em>is</em> a great Pink Floyd album with all respects. And, to me, the last great Pink Floyd album. Yeah, yeah, I can hear you all moaning and hissing. Let's just go on with the show.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Boring moments? Nil! Only plenty of good music.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Less atmospheric sound, more Roger Waters anger. I guess it compensates, somewhat.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - It's a different sound, yes, but is it new?<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Good songs all over. A tad more repetitive than before, perhaps.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - I can't demand much more. Yes, maybe a bit more of cohesion, but I won't be such a dick.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/12.png" alt="12" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:raven4x4x@hotmail.com">Alex Holman</a> (July 31, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>This is the album, along with <strong>Meddle</strong>, that highlights the unfair media focus on <strong>Dark Side of the Moon</strong>. We all know about how Pink Floyd were totally invisible in the media until <strong>Dark Side</strong>, but what about since that album? It's almost as if <strong>Dark Side</strong> was the only album they ever made. And that's really unfair, since this album is a total masterpiece, more so than <strong>Dark Side</strong> in my opinion.</p>

<p>I'm not really sure what to make of the start and ending tracks, which I'll handle together because the're nearly identical. They are nothing like the rest of the tracks, not entirely bad but I'm not quite sure what they do. Roger thinks they are important anyway: in his <strong>Live In the Flesh DVD</strong> (total masterpiece by the way) he plays 'Pigs on the Wing Part One' before 'Dogs'. I suppose he should know what they're about since he wrote the things.</p>
 
<p>Anyway, onto Dogs. I don't like this song as much as the other two on this album, but it's still a great piece of music and songwriting. Dave's guitar solos are great, especially the 'duet' bit which is played twice throughout the song, but the ones on <strong>Live in the Flesh</strong> are better in my view. Also the synthy middle section has a funky keyboard solo. Back to the proper album now. I do like the feel of this song: that sort of desolate, empty music and the angry solos. It's good. Just not as good as the other two songs here.</p>
 
<p>If Dogs was angry, Pigs is even angrier. I really really love the intro: those funny keyboards, interesting bass and vicious guitar. And again after the verses into the intrumental bit with the freaky riff and pig squealy guitar. Wonderful atmosphere. The verses themselves are great: I can never resist singing along to "ah ha, charade you are". Roger writes some really nasty lines such as "you radiate cold shafts of broken glass". Great lyricism, and the delivery is pure evil. Nasty. This is an angry album.</p>

<p>Sheep just flat out rocks. From the funky keyboard intro it just explodes intro an awsome song. Again, there is anger here. The lyrics are just awesome. I have to nominate "bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream. Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into a dream" as my favourite song lyrics ever. The middle section with the 'Lord's prayer' is spooky, and the guitar at the finale: wow.</p>
 
<p>This is in my view the classic Pink Floyd album. Roger is at his most nasty, Dave does some great solos on Dogs and all round great guitar work throughout the album. Rick may be pretty much absent but he does some good bits, and Nick is solid throughout. This is The Floyd the way I like them. 9.5/10</p>
</div>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:awoehrel@netcarrier.com">Andrew Worhrel</a> (August 14, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Pink Floyd-<strong>Animals</strong><br />
1977<br />
Best Song: Dogs<br />
Pigs On The Wing Part 1<br />
Dogs<span class="good">++</span><br />
Pigs<span class="good">++</span><br />
Sheep<span class="good">++</span><br />
Pings On The Wing Part 2</p>
 
<p>Yeah, <strong>Wish You Were Here</strong> wasn't that good. I suppose Waters was planning to outdo that one with <strong>The Wall</strong> or <strong>Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking</strong>, but then, BAM THWOK!* The Punk Rock Revolution! Barre chords! Distortion! Leather Jackets! Anarchy! Sniffing Glue! RRRRRRRRRRRRRROCK. Yeah...whatever. Waters, being the King of Pink Floyd, wasn't exactly a hero to bands like the Sex Pistols, who hated him and his pretentiousness. In fact, The Sex Pistols hated everything. Especially the Queen. They took political music to the extreme, with songs about anarchy, and other stuff that seems cool until you realize you're not a 14 year old teenager anymore. Waters actually was a political guy with opinions. Especially about "The Man". Ohhh, Waters hated "The Man", and his buddies the rich, their brutes, the police, and their mindless followers. So why not make a concept album about it?</p>
 
<p>AND MAKE HE DID.</p>
 
<p><strong>Animals</strong> is a pissed-off complaint (more of a whine than the scream of anger that Waters described it as) at the English Government. The Pigs are the rich greedy fatcats, the Dogs are the people with power and influence who do whatever it is to get to the top, and the Sheep have no power, they are the mindless followers. So he writes three songs about them. Dogs is the first, and the best. Waters himself is a Dog, by his own definition, and he puts some emotion into the delivery of his lyrics. It's an awesome song, 17+ minutes with some good Gilmour leads and such. I'd go as far to say the best Floyd song ever.<br />
Pigs is a complaint against censorship, and the fatcats. Aside from the angry political lyrics (big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are) the song is probably the "wimpiest" of the three, but it's still a good one. Cool rhythm and pig noises. Rock On, Mofo.<br />
Sheep is the worst of the three, in my opinion, the lyrics are rather silly (RISE UP, SHEEP! AND KICK THINE ASSES OF YOUR OPPRESSORS!! THEN BECOME DOGS YOURSELF! YOU FUCKIN' DUMBASSES)</p>

<p>(Man, that was quite Prindle-esque. I've been reading him a lot lately. Funny man. Funny, funny, poop-obsessed man)</p>
 
<p>Where was I? Oh yes. Sheep sucks. No, wait, it doesn't, it's Quite Kickass (tm) but it's not as good as the other two. The guitar finale is cool but..hokey? Eh, I dunno, something feels weird here.</p>
 
<p>Oh and the other two tracks are little acoustic bookends that are exactly the same other than the lyrics.</p>
 
<p>Now, my opinion: The plot is a little wacko, but it's fun and interesting (I was quite obsessed with it when I first heard it) and it has some relevance today. There are no bigger Pigs in the world than George Bush's Carlyle group. Ha ha. Charade you are. Motherfucker!<br />
Anyway, 3 fabtabulous songs, and two silly filler tracks. But they're only 3 minutes long as opposed to the rest of the album being the other 42 minutes. Sounds good to me. No problems here. 10/10. The Floyd's crowning achievement.</p>
 
<p>*Name the reference, get a quarter!</p>
</div>

<p>Comments? Comments? Comments? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="wall">The Wall (1979)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Another Brick In The Wall, part II</big><em>, and now do yourself a favour and keep quiet.</em>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>In The Flesh? <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Thin Ice</li>
  <li>Another Brick In The Wall, part I <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Happiest Days Of Our Lives</li>
  <li><span class="good">Another Brick In The Wall, part II ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Mother ++</span></li>
  <li>Goodbye Blue Sky <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Empty Spaces <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li>Young Lust <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">One Of My Turns ++</span></li>
  <li>Don't Leave Me Now <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Another Brick In The Wall, part III <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Goodbye Cruel World</li>
  <li>Hey You <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Is There Anybody Out There</li>
  <li>Nobody Home</li>
  <li>Vera</li>
  <li>Bring The Boys Back Home</li>
  <li>Comfortably Numb</li>
  <li>The Show Must Go On</li>
  <li>In The Flesh</li>
  <li>Run Like Hell</li>
  <li>Waiting For The Worms</li>
  <li>Stop</li>
  <li>The Trial</li>
  <li>Outside The Wall</li>
</ol>

<p>Fantastic album! Absolute, timeless masterpiece recommended to everyone. 15 out of 15. I'm talking, of course, about <strong>Clube Da Esquina</strong>, the original one from 1972, not the 1978 sequel, though that one is good, too. As for this one, well, it's the culmination of Roger's dominance over the band, the ultimate Roger Floyd album. You know, this isn't just Roger writing all the lyrics and stuff: this is him putting his own personal details into the album, taking virtually all the decisions and very little input from the other band members. Oh, yes, and talking about band members, he brings a <em>horde</em> of extra musicians, as well as backup from an orchestra, a choir, and even a substitute drummer for some songs - including the countless sound effects and bits of speech. This is Roger Waters making Pink Floyd bow down to him, and as a consequence, creating one of the most famous and celebrated rock albums in history. But the aching question is: does it deserve that status?</p>

<p>Well, hold your horses, because I won't try to answer that. No, I can't be that pretentious. All I can give here is a very personal, very biased opinions. And, hey, if you're reading <em>my personal website</em>, that's what you ought to expect (just in case you didn't know). The concept, I hopefully don't need to explain much. But suffice to say, I'm not in full agreement with those who say the album's concept is silly, or makes no sense, or whatever. The concept isn't supposed to <em>make</em> sense, in a traditional sense, so I can't complain about that. What I know is that it <em>is</em> well executed, and if it's over-the-top, it's because it's supposed to be. I have no complaints about it, but who am I to speak? I don't listen to Pink Floyd because of the concept... well, maybe that's the problem, because from some point, the album builds more and more on the concept and kind of leaves the music on the background. It's like many of these songs were written just to satisfy a plot point. And, well, I couldn't care less for them. Luckily, that doesn't happen too often on the first disc, so that means... yes, it happens a lot on the second disc.</p>

<p>To be fair, though, I'm pretty sure this album was really important to Roger, at that time, and came across as a real moment of catharsis, as overblown as it could possibly be. In the 1977 tour, Roger was growing more and more alienated and frustrated by the audience's reaction to their playing (i.e. cheering and yelling regardless of what the band was doing), which caused him to shout abuse to the fans and, ultimately, spit at one of them. After the show, he had the concept of creating a wall between himself and the rest of the world, which is the basis for the plot of the album, as everyone knows. You can face it all like an opportunity for Roger to blame all his misery on other people (like David Gilmour did, on occasions), but you might as well see it as an in-your-face commentary of how the world can screw up a person's life against his will and, through the clever "cyclical" trick, how it's not an isolated case, but something that happens all the time. The concept for what would become Roger's solo album, <strong>The Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking</strong>, was also developed by that time, and it was the band's choice to make <strong>The Wall</strong> instead - so they at least had A BIT of input, heh. But fact still stands that this is Roger's album, with small collaboration from Gilmour, but still a Roger album.</p>

<p>Well, okay, so let's review it. You know, the thing that annoys me isn't the isolated fact that this album was so successful. What bugs me is that, in many places, Pink Floyd and <strong>The Wall</strong> are virtually the same thing, and the album has basically <em>nothing</em> of what made the band so good through all those years. Roger brings in a bit of blues, a bit of hard rock, a bit of overblown orchestration and some other stuff. And while that brew would be rather commonplace for Roger Waters, it's very unusual for Pink Floyd. It <em>does</em> give us some undeniable classics, though, and I have no problems in admitting that. Like I said, the first disc has the most "actual music" material, and it's overall better. And, say what you will, but the side A medley of the first two parts of 'Another Brick In The Wall' is outstanding, both because of the songs' quality and the way they fit each other so well. Part 1 is quieter and more atmospheric, with just one verse and a long "coda" with sound effects and subtle synth work. 'The Happiest Days Of Our Lives' serves as an entertaining, brief interlude - featuring that memorable, pulsating drum rhythm - which throws us headfirst into a climactic ending, and then, part 2. I suppose I <em>should</em> rant at the song's popularity, but I can't do that! The song's too good. The melody, ridiculously simple to the point of near-banality, which worked so well as ominous atmosphere on the first part, here becomes something of a psychotic anthem. And the school choir? And the awesome, pounding martial-disco rhythm? The groovy rhythm guitar? Totally rocks. David throws a good solo at the end, but I don't care much about it - usual Gilmour stuff, anti-climactic here, in fact. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.</p>

<p>I also really like 'Mother', an almost-acoustic blues-ballad of sorts, for which Roger needed another drummer because Mr. Nick Mason couldn't master that incredibly, mind-bendingly single 5/8 bar in between perfectly normal 4/4 bars. I'm being ironic here, notice. It's not a difficult rhythm, though I wouldn't doubt that Nick's inability was mostly due to the stress of working for such a psychotic despot like Roger Waters. But, like I can only say, I'm speculating. The song itself is good, anyway. I also love the album opener, 'In The Flesh?', which bursts in with those memorable-as-heck heavy-metal-ish chords, takes off into a "soulful" bluesy song, and comes tumbling down with a mess of noises, shouting and instrument-whacking - halting with the sound of a crying baby. <em>THAT</em> is an awesome intro. 'One Of My Turns' has always been something of a favourite - the first half isn't very special, with some synth droning serving as the base for some speech (a groupie coming into the apartment where Pink Floyd - that is, the protagonist - is staying) and a few sung verses. It eventually burts into a loud rock song with an excellent groove. It could have easily been longer than that, even, but it's fine. The third, final part of 'Another Brick In The Wall' is also good; the shorter of the three, angrier but not as rhythmic as the second. And has that memorable TV smashing intro. Goodie.</p>

<p>There's plenty of stuff that I definitely don't like, though. For example, the combination of 'Empty Spaces' and 'Young Lust' could easily be dismissed. The former's mainly just a long synthesizer intro to a song that never actually begins (though it has the cool backwards message, that one which says "congratulations! You just discovered the secret message"), and the latter's a stupid parody on stupid macho rock music. I <em>know</em> it's important to the plot, but see? It's like they just needed a song to suit that space, and wrote a throwaway that would fit. There's no cool riff, no catchy melody, and just a lot of dorky Gilmour screaming lyrics that are the stupidest kind of "raunchy" that I ever saw. Of course, they weren't really serious, but that only makes things worse: it's a parody, but it's not entertaining. "Take this rock 'n' roll refugee / Ooh, baby, set me free!", David sings. "Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, I need a dirty girl," they vent in the chorus. Yeuch.</p>

<p>Oh, yes, and I <em>didn't</em> get to the second disc, which features a load of on-the-spot vignettes like 'Bring The Boys Back Home' and 'The Show Must Go On', and more throwaway songs, this time in the shape of ballads. The short 'Vera' has a beautiful melody, and 'Is There Anybody Out There?' has beautiful acoustic guitar, but 'Nobody Home' doesn't have a lot to offer: orchestral piano ballad (I'm sure Rick didn't play that piano), with lyrics that don't particularly grab my attention. And don't even get me started on the dreaded 'Comfortably Numb', in which Roger allows David to waste metres and metres of tapes with go-nowhere guitar solos of the worst kind. The song itself is the usual "atmosphere" without melody, which is really just an excuse for David to show off. I have no use for it. I used to dislike it, but it's a waste of emotions to dislike it. It would just roll by unnoticed, if it wasn't so long. Roger's "dizzy" singing is quite fun, though. If you want ballads, the first disc has much better material, like 'Goodbye Blue Sky', and the aching, hard-hitting 'Don't Leave Me Now', which might as well be one of the eeriest, scariest "lost love" ballads ever written: dissonant chords, pulsating organ chord, scary atmosphere, and lyrics that go "how could you go / When you know how I need you / To beat to a pulp on a Saturday night, oh babe!" and so on, until the sad, lonely finale bursts in. <em>There</em> is a song that fits its context and works well.</p>

<p>Second disc is somewhat saved by the opener, 'Hey You', a beautiful song portraying desolation very well, with gorgeous guitar line and vocal melody - and a gruesome, "heavy" guitar solo for good measure, of course. But then, for the final side, it finally turns into a lengthy winding up of the plot with little memorable music in sight. The reprise of 'In The Flesh' isn't very special, and 'Run Like Hell' is a pretty generic, un-spectacular groove-rock with nothing catchy about it. Finally, it breaks down into the bombastic, puffed-up 'Waiting For The Worms', in which Pink is already transformed into the wanna-be crazed fascist. The only cool moment is at the end, with the crowd chanting along to the rhythm, which grows more intense and never seems to reach its end. 'Stop', well... <em>stops</em>, and takes us into 'The Trial', the album's theatrical grand-finale. At least, it's puffed up in the goofiest way possible, but I think it's awfully underdeveloped - maybe it's just the way Roger handles all the voices. He's awesome as "The Schoolmaster", but I just can't imagine him as Pink's wife or his mother, if you understand me. Bob Ezrin's orchestral arrangement is brilliant, but the song as a whole, I feel, is quite a letdown. I must admit that I was utterly <em>thrilled</em> the first time I heard it, but it lost its novelty value very quickly. Fortunately, after the wall is torn down, you have the pleasant, folky 'Outside The Wall', which slows down the ride to a very faint melody with a clarinet, an accordion and a children choir, which actually takes us all the way back to the beginning of the album. If you're masochistic, or if you worship the album <em>that</em> much, you can try manually linking the end of the last track to the beginning of the first one (which completes David's spoken "So this is where we came in" line) to make an endlessly repeating Pink Floyd album. Hooray! All thanks to the digital technology. You can't do that on vinyl, can you? THANKFULLY not, and it's a shame I don't have the album on vinyl. I resist the temptation, though. I'm not masochistic.</p>

<p>But it's not like I don't like the album at all. I'd be lying if I said that. The truth is that, well, I can't give it a definitive veredict, and I can only say that, yes, I kinda like it. I <em>respect</em> the album, and I <em>understand</em> all the people who love the album (as well as all the people who hate it!). Hey, seriously, I have no problem with it! <strong>The Wall</strong> <em>is</em> an excellent album, just as much as it is an awful album, so whomever you side with, it's okay. I'm not siding with anyone, anyway. What is definitely sure is that this album isn't "Pink Floyd" anymore. This album is Roger Waters, in lyrics and music. If you want Pink Floyd, get <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong>, or, for the purists, <strong>Piper At The Gates Of Dawn</strong>. This is Roger's opus, so be prepared for something different. You know, Rick is just totally absent from the record, and he was actually fired from the band during the sessions. Good for him: the huge tour that ensued left the band out of money, while Rick just got his payment as a backing musician and carried on with his life. You can get <strong>Is There Anybody Out There?</strong> to listen to what the tour sounded like, but it would have been much more fun <em>watching</em> it, wouldn't it? I know I'd like watching it, if only for curiousity. As for <strong>The Wall</strong>, it can stick around. It still can be fun, sometimes.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Depends A LOT on my mood. But disc one is <em>always</em> much better than disc two.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Again, depends on the mood. But this isn't stuff to relate to. This is stuff to <em>think deeply about</em> i.e. stupid. Just kidding.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Okay, gotta give Roger the due credit. Musically, it's not very new, though.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Some good material, some crap.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - It works as intended, I guess. But listening to the whole thing gets tiresome, eventually.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/10.png" alt="10" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Raves? "<strong>The Wall</strong> is the best album ever" remarks, in case you're Mark Prindle? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="cut">The Final Cut (1982)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Paranoid Eyes</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>The Post War Dream</li>
  <li>Your Possible Pasts <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>One Of The Few</li>
  <li>The Hero's Return <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>The Gunner's Dream <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Paranoid Eyes ++</span></li>
  <li>Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert</li>
  <li>The Fletcher Memorial Home <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Southampton Dock <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">The Final Cut ++</span></li>
  <li>Not Now John <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Two Suns In The Sunset ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>At this point, there wasn't even such a thing as "Roger Floyd". Pink Floyd was but an excuse, a moniker that didn't mean anything anymore. The music, which once belonged to all members of the band, now belongs solely to Roger Waters and nobody else - to the point where the album credits the album as being written by Roger Waters, and "performed by Pink Floyd". But this album being "performed by Pink Floyd" doesn't mean it will have anything similar <em>whatsoever</em> to the classic Floyd albums. See, this isn't just a band changing directions: this is a band ceasing to exist. Just think: Rick Wright was nowhere to be seen. Playing just as a hired musician during the short-lived <em>The Wall</em> tour, he just left and went to follow his own solo carreer. Nick Mason, well... there's nothing in the drumming here that assures us it's actually him playing. As for David Gilmour, he just stood there by Roger's pressure, and all he does is provide a bit of guitar here and there.</p>

<p>But wait... If David plays little guitar, and if Rick is totally absent... <em>who is playing</em>? Well, an orchestra. And the usual sound effects, of course. See, the music takes the route of "symphonic rock" suggested somewhere on side 3 of <strong>The Wall</strong>, with the usual blues twists and <em>lots and lots</em> of patented Roger Waters lyrics about war, war and more war. It was an adequate time to talk about war, in fact - i.e. the Falklands. And lyrically, the album isn't just some self-indulgent gimmick: it was <em>clear</em> that Roger was really into the thing, and had a genuine, personal motivation to do this - remember that his father died in the war when he was still young. So, yes, we can give him credit for that. The lyrics are all very good, in fact. Yes, it <em>might</em> become a bit obsessive, at times, but this is a concept album, for goodness' sakes. Well, musically, the album was put together starting from leftover songs from <strong>The Wall</strong>. You <em>can</em> hear influences from that album if you listen close enough, here, but there is new material, too, so it doesn't sound like a collection of outtakes.</p>

<p>Well, if anything, this album shows a bit of Roger's weaknesses as a songwriter. There isn't the diversity that <strong>The Wall</strong> had, so in addition of being a little monotonous, it also lacks those things that are really supposed to make an album like this truly memorable: solid melodies. Not that there aren't any, but the album overall seems more filled with "stuff" than I would be comfortable with. That stuff being meandering orchestral arrangements, SFX, singing that sounds more like talking than singing, etc.. But you know? Pink Floyd was never a band widely famous for their endless source of melodies. In fact, they were always very creative and original with arrangements, unusual twists, building of atmospheres and everything else. So, why should I be complaining that this album lacks melodies? Primarily because there's only about <em>one</em> atmosphere in the whole album. Yes, it's very, very well constructed and the orchestral arrangements are always spot on. But that doesn't mean that it will hold the attention of everyone as it goes. It's easy to get bored, or even annoyed, at the endless mumbling and moaning.</p>

<p>But that's not my case. I'm not into this album really because of the lyrics (even though Roger's voice is <em>always</em> in the centre of everything); I like it because the songs are, well, beautiful. And to be honest, I like it more than I like <strong>The Wall</strong>. All tracks here are full fledged <em>SONGS</em>; some shorter, some longer,but they are all fully developed songs. There aren't stretches of "plot development" like there was on <strong>The Wall</strong>, and there aren't either songs with the sole purpose of suiting the story's needs. After all, there isn't a plot here. And almost all those songs are just very, very beautiful. It helps that Roger hardly goes for the "catharsis" effect, so there are very few moments here that I could name as bombastic. The most that he does are the wild, unexpected dynamic shifts, like when he's just softly singing on the corner for one second, and then belts out an Earth-shattering scream; or when a disturbing sound effect bursts into the song. But Roger never takes the approach of "when you have nothing to say, say nothing, but say it VERY, VERY LOUD". Yeah, it gets <em>close</em> to that on the album's "rock and roll" song, 'Not Now John'. It sounds a tad similar to 'Young Lust', but instead of going for the goof factor, it's just an attempt to sound bitter and angry (with lyrics that refer to Hollywood and movies - most sources inform me that it reflects Roger's discontentment with the movie adaptation of <em>The Wall</em>, though I always thought it suited very well as a commentary on war movies in general). Yeah, it <em>does</em> sound bitter and angry, but it has those AWFULLY ANNOYING backing vocals. Not that they ruin the song singlehandedly, but they help.</p>

<p>Other than that bad spot, everything is just fine and dandy. I've always loved 'Paranoid Eyes', with its gentle sadness and beautiful piano line. The title track, which has 'Southampton Dock' as a sort of acoustic preamble, is also gorgeous, with one of the album's most memorable melodies - and a David Gilmour solo, that comes out of nowhere and goes to the same place. He's also present in the sad, bluesy 'The Fletcher Memorial Home', and on the slightly more beautiful 'Your Possible Pasts' (a part of that song appears on the movie adaptation of <em>The Wall</em>), while Roger prefers a sax solo for the wonderful 'The Gunner's Dream' - shame it's not Dick Parry, though. 'The Hero's Return', with another great melody, is fairly reminiscent of 'Another Brick In The Wall' - check out the guitar rhythm. The album ends with the fabulous 'Two Suns In The Sunset', with strange, apocalyptic lyrics - call me crazy, but the title seems to make an allusion to the explosion of an atomic bomb. That's how I interpret it, anyway.</p>

<p>Those who particularly liked <strong>The Wall</strong> might want to check out this album, though I can't guarantee total satisfaction. After all, this isn't "rock and roll". This is serious, introspective music that <em>actually</em> works if you're feeling introspective. And if you enjoyed the previous album as a fuel to chemically-induced trips, this record won't do at all. This is music for the sober. Okay, it has a mood of depressed drunkenness at times, but it's better to listen to this record with a clear, fresh mind - if you want to like the record, that is. Anyway, I'm not sure if this is one of those albums that eventually "grow on you". Not that it <em>won't</em> do so, but for most people, I believe, it's either instantaneous "love it" or "hate it". Either way, remember that this isn't essential Pink Floyd. It's a good idea to look for solo Roger Waters if you want more of this stuff. As for Pink Floyd, well, the band fell apart for good here. Permanently? Ah, no! Read on, but be careful.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Say whatever you wish, I like this stuff.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - It works well for me. Roger meant all of this, and he delivers the message well.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>11/15</strong></big> - Well, you know...<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Not a whole lot of memorable musical material, but plenty of genuine beauty to be found.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - I can't deny it's monotonous. It demands the right mood to work well as a whole.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/11.png" alt="11" />
</p>

<p><em>Reader comments:</em></p>

<div class="commentsHeader">
      <strong><a href="mailto:bmovaqar@yahoo.com">Bahman Movaqar</a> (August 14, 2004):</strong>
</div>

<div class="comments">
<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I admire your subtle musical view on the album, (I mean '<strong>The Final Cut</strong>') but I think there's more to it than you have mentioned. The album is about WAR, as you have mentioned, and that sounds no joyful. I believe there should be sometimes in my habitual life to think about the facts the happen around me, around the world; about how a man's life is burned due to war, as two of my uncles' and about the hundreds of people being raped, murdered and killed everyday all over the world. Something should warn me that I am forgetting that I am not the only one on this sad old patient planet and my acceptable state of life does not mean that the others are the same.<br />
The album gives me the chance to think. I do not listen to the album just for interest or enjoyment, but to think; and that is what pure art should be: To make people think.</p>

<p>Finally, I did not mean any offence. If I did so, I am so sorry. <span class="edNote">[editor's note: Absolutely none taken!]</span></p>

<p>Thank you for your interesting site. I learned a lot about Pink Floyd here.<br />
Good Luck.</p>
</div>

<p>Comments? Rants? "Waters sux" remarks? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me, please</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="reason">A Momentary Lapse Of Reason (1987)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Learning To Fly</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Signs Of Life</li>
  <li><span class="good">Learning To Fly ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">Dogs Of War &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>One Slip <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>On The Turning Away</li>
  <li>Yet Another Movie / Round And Around <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">A New Machine, part 1 &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Terminal Frost <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="bad">A New Machine, part 2 &times;&times;</span></li>
  <li>Sorrow <span class="bad">&times;</span></li>
</ol>

<p>A legal battle ensued, and David Gilmour managed to retain the Pink Floyd name. So, he was very happy to bring Rick Wright and Nick Mason back into the band and release brand new Pink Floyd album. Well... in theory, at least. This sounds like a painful, desperate attempt by David to make something that deserves to be called a Pink Floyd record. The result is not too far from a late-eighties product made by someone who doesn't really remembers <em>what</em> is it that made the band so good, in first place. On second thought, that's what it <em>is</em>!</p>

<p>See, on surface, all the right elements are here: the surreal Hipgnosis cover, long tracks, lots of keyboard atmosphere, guitar solos, serious lyrics, slow rhythms, etc.. But that's just the surface. On essence, this is a David Gilmour solo album, every bit like <strong>The Final Cut</strong> was a Waters solo album: there isn't at all the sound of a <em>band</em> working together. It's just a lot of David Gilmour, a shadow of Mason and Wright, and a HUGE back-up band. There are so many additional musicians here, I'm even in doubt whether the two other Floyd musicians play here at all. As for the songwriting, well, it's basically Gilmour and a lot of other people - like, for example, Phil Manzanera. So, you should be aware of what you should expect: a rip-off.</p>

<p>Yes, a rip-off, because David is <em>intent</em> on making this a genuine Pink Floyd record. That, on itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the music was good enough, I wouldn't complain too much. Problem is, the music <em>isn't</em> good enough. In fact, it's bad enough to make me complain. And a lot of people complained, as well, which motivated David to say something along the lines of "If it weren't Pink Floyd, it wouldn't be so bad." Well, firstly: it is Pink Floyd <em>only in name</em>. Secondly, OF COURSE it wouldn't be so bad! Heck, David should be actually surprised that people weren't praising it all over <em>because</em> it was Pink Floyd - which would have been more predictable. If it were a David Gilmour solo album, the album's weaknesses would be understandable. The album would be just as sucky, but it wouldn't be such an insult. But <em>no</em>: it just had to be released under the Pink Floyd moniker. So, what can I possibly do other than consider this the worst Pink Floyd album ever? I'd be lying if I said it weren't, really. Of course, that's to <em>me</em>, but most Pink Floyd fans weren't happy either with it.</p>

<p>For starters, you can imagine the album as an updated, hi-tech version of <strong>Meddle</strong>, with all the atmosphere removed. Instead of the profound, evocative sounds made by all sorts of things, you get the metallic, lifeless meanderings of synthesizers and guitar solos - yes, <em>plenty</em> of guitar solos. There aren't as many guitar solos as David would have the pleasure to stuff their live releases with, which means that when the guitar isn't whining and squealing for hours without stopping, there's... well, pretty much <em>nothing</em>. The record's awfully empty and hollow - with a few exceptions. For example, 'The Dogs Of War' is downright <em>atrocious</em>. Say whatever you will about Roger Waters's obsession with war, but you gotta agree that he never did something so in-your-face, ridiculous and pathetic as this. I'm even in doubt whether David was serious when doing this, because there's absolutely <em>no way</em> I could take the "menacing" synthesized strings, the "angry" yelling and the stomping Blues rhythm seriously. If he <em>wasn't</em> serious, well, the result is just not funny. And what it is? <em>Worst Pink Floyd song ever</em>. The fans of the album will excuse me, but 'The Dogs Of War' is a carcrash, and there's little I can do about it. Still in the "atrocious" section, I have to show here my utter confusion regarding the two-part 'A New Machine', which is formed by nothing other than David's singing encoded by some wild effect that I can only describe as a sort-of vocoder with heavy reverb, which ends up turning every word he sings into a creepy synth chord. It's a cool effect to be used for a while, but to make an entire track with? And what's so important about it to be used as "bookends" for 'Terminal Frost'? What's this, 'Pigs On The Wing', by any chance? David doesn't seem to be singing anything important at all, and no melody is detectable there, so no; sounds like hi-tech wizardry show-off, and of the worst kind, to me.</p>

<p>Other than that, the track that's "bookended" by that <em>thing</em> is a quite pleasant, though inessential instrumental song. It also gets kudos for sounding just like what the title suggests, with a lonely piano line popping up at times, and a soprano sax filling in the blanks. To me, it's just, <em>just</em> fine. On the other hand, the opener 'Signs Of Life', is just nothing worth listening: a slow synth arpeggio, which gives in to a no-great-shakes-at-all snipped of a guitar solo. The only good part of it is when it finally allows 'Learning To Fly' to begin. That song was the staple of Pink Floyd at the time, artsy MTV video at all. And, you know, it's a nice, well-written song, with a lack of a vocal hook but a well-built, upbeat backing track that makes up for it, sort of. The "typical Pink Floyd" middle-break, with the voices and all isn't detracting at all, and the only annoying thing is that idiotic "tinkling", almost random sequence of synth notes running through parts of the song, which writes "LATE EIGHTIES" all over the song and brings back memories of the soundtracks of movies like <em>Flashdance</em>, <em>Top Gun</em> and <em>Dirty Dancing</em>. I know, I know, it probably was "ULTRA HAWT" at that time, and after all, Dave was keeping up with the times, but a dated synth effect is a dated synth effect, no matter what. A similar thing pops up on the otherwise great pop song 'One Slip', which builds from a totally unnecessary, unexplainable intro that sounds like an alarm system being set off.Why? Dunno. I just know the song itself is really nice. And, you know, I don't have much against 'On The Turning Away',which is his attempt at sounding really "anthemic"; it's got a really good melody, after all! Yes, it's overblown, but it's a good melody nonetheless. And, oh yes, it's got a really long guitar solo at the end, too. After all, how could the side end with <em>anything</em> other than a long guitar solo? No way, man. Dig that soulful playing, MAN.</p>

<p>The remaining two songs are so hollow that I can hardly think of something to say about them - except that 'Sorrow' is the longest song in the record. Eight minutes! 'Yet Another Movie', with its seven minutes and 'Round And Around' coda, isn't too far behind, either. And they are also murderously slow and filled with synth noises that are supposed to sound eerie, I assume. It might sound eerie for some people, but I'm not one of them. Not that I have a problem with them, you know. Us and them, and after all, we're only ordinary men. As for me, personally, my slot of "slow, atmospheric" music is already filled with Sigur R&oacute;s, for example, so this album is totally unecessary - not that it ever <em>was</em> necessary for anything other than filling my Pink Floyd collection. Oh, no, I don't own all Pink Floyd records - only the more important ones. And, want it or not, this is an important record. So, it gets an important <em>5</em> - which is at least higher from the unimportant 4 I gave to <strong>Tubular Bells II</strong>. You happy now, Gilmour fans?</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>5/15</strong></big>  - Aside from the bad spots, it's good. Err... I mean, aside from the good spots, it's bad. Uh... Er...<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>4/15</strong></big>  - Guitar solos? No, thanks. Dull synthesizers? I'll pass. Entertaining rhythms? Those can stick around.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>5/15</strong></big>  - How original is a Pink Floyd rip-off? That's right: Oh, for goodness' sakes!<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>6/15</strong></big>  - Okay, that's <em>some</em> good fluff here. Fluff, but good. Good, but fluff. You know.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>5/15</strong></big>  - Solid? Does it even matter?
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/05.png" alt="5" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Suggestions? <em>Flames</em>? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail me</a>!</p>

<hr />

<h2 id="bell">The Division Bell (1994)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Poles Apart</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Cluster One</li>
  <li>What Do You Want From Me?</li>
  <li><span class="good">Poles Apart ++</span></li>
  <li>Marooned</li>
  <li>A Great Day For Freedom</li>
  <li>Wearing The Inside Out <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Take It Back</li>
  <li>Coming Back To Life <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Keep Talking</li>
  <li>Lost For Words <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>High Hopes <span class="good">+</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Again? Another surreal Hipgnosis cover? Yep, you betcha. This is one puffed-up record. And it isn't really because of the beautiful cover, not even because the whole album is <em>sixty-six</em> minutes long, or because it's again assembled like one big medley. Nope: the really big deal is the <em>Publius Enigma</em>, which surrounds this entire album, and that went for <em>over one decade without being solved</em>. You know, what else could make an album so good as an Internet puzzle that was actually a big marketing trick by EMI?</p>

<p>Anyway, this album is good. Yes, I said it, and I can say it again: this album is <em>good</em> - as in <em>enjoyable</em>. For one, it at least <em>seems</em> to me that good ole David spent some more time coming up with good material for the album. Also, it might be just an impression, but it <em>seems</em> like I can hear a bit more of Mason and Wright on the album. In fact, Rick even contributed and sung one song in here; that is, 'Wearing The Inside Out'. And the fact that the song has a <em>quite</em> memorable and catchy melody makes me more convinced that David's idea of taking over Pink Floyd just wasn't bound to work. Wright was so important to the band, it's just silly to forget him. But then again, he just contributed <em>one</em> song in here; and it sounds unlikely that it's because David was stopping him from contributing more. The song? Well, it's beautiful - horribly slow, maybe a bit too slow for its own good (not that slow songs suck by default, but heck, making a really good slow song is <em>no trivial matter</em>), but enjoyable.</p>

<p>David doesn't really disappoint, though, and he's responsible for actually <em>very good</em> songs in here. The thing is, this is really a return to the past; if <strong>A Momentary Lapse Of Reason</strong> was an attempt to bring Pink Floyd all the way to 1987, <strong>The Division Bell</strong> is an attempt to bring us all back to 1973. Yes, the sound is updated and modern, but in terms of atmosphere, he's really trying to resurrect the old feel here. Not necessarily a <em>bad</em> thing, but the lack of progress can be annoying for some. Myself, I'm already happy that this "resurrection" is <em>far</em> more convincing than the previous album, only because the band sounds more authentic here, without all those 80's electronic gimmicks. There <em>is</em> a fair bit of gimmickry here, but it's much less accentuated. And, yes, there's a fair ammount of Pink Floyd immitation going on here - like on the very beginning, with 'Cluster One', a slow introductory instrumental that sounds like all the Pink Floyd clich&eacute;s wrapped up into a single package. It works, though, because it's just a subtle welcome, instead of some long, self-indulgent solo or some self-important nothing like 'Signs Of Life'. 'What Do You Want From Me' brings back the bluesy, angry groove for David to vent his frustration about people's expectations. Ooo, he sounds pissed off there! "What do you want from me?" he asks you, over a not very convincing rhythm; "Do you want my blood? Do you want my tears?" No, Dave, I just want your <em>MELODIES</em>, you know. "You're so hard to please?" Geez, Dave, nice way to diss your fans."Do you want me to sing 'till I can't sing anymore, play the strings 'till the fingers are raw?" <em>NO</em>, for goodness's sakes, David! You <em>already do</em> that all the time, and that's <em>definitely</em> not what I want. Like good old Geddy Lee would say, YOU BEEEEET YOOOOUR LIFE!</p>

<p>It's not like I'm complaining, see. There <em>are</em> some songs that don't do much for me, like the second attempt at being "anthemic" - that is 'A Great Day For Freedom' - and the mechanical groove of 'Keep Talking', which even reaches out for the guitar effect from 'Pigs' and an extract of speech from Stephen Hawking's voicebox (!); it also features backing vocalists a la <strong>Dark Side Of The Moon</strong> (like several other songs here) and is quite meandering, but not bad. I could do with less guitar, of course, but that's the usual complaint. As for 'Take It Back',it's upbeat and poppy and really, <em>really</em> lightweight - which means that "typical Pink Floyd" middle-break <em>is</em> kinda unecessary and detracting. Just sounds like another attempt at making it <em>clear</em> that they are, after all, Pink Floyd. The same happens on 'Poles Apart', but the small difference is, 'Poles Apart' is <em>gorgeous</em>. The title refers to Syd Barrett and Roger Waters, apparently, and the song's melody and guitar line really do them justice. And really, I don't mind the "spaced-out" break, since the song comes back for a particularly touching finale,justifying the song's length and all. And after that song comes 'Marooned'. You know, I <em>was</em> very partial for that song in the past, but I can't say I am anymore. See, it's a guitar solo. A <em>five minute guitar solo</em>. The band is playing, for sure, but it's a five minute long guitar solo. You know, I could stop talking about it right now, since it'd be easy to guess my feelings for a five minute long David Gilmour guitar solo. Suffice to say, I have more use for that guitar solo at the end of Mike Oldfield's <strong>Tubular Bells 2003</strong>. That's supposed to be shocking, by the way.</p>

<p>Oh, but there are other songs that I like. For example, the catchy ballad 'Coming Back To Life' - with more Gilmour soloing, yes, but it's catchy nonetheless. And in 'Lost For Words', he switches to the acoustic guitar to deliver a pleasant, beautiful country-tinged ballad, and I actually like the lyrics about useless fights that never get resolved (yes, another indirect jab at Roger), and the sounds of a boxing fight in the middle, in which the actual winner is never announced. And in the end, comes the long, dramatic 'High Hopes', which works as a sort of recollection of the band's carreer to that point. I could play "spot the reference", by noticing how elements like the fly from 'Grantchester Meadows' and the cathedral bells from 'Fat Old Sun' (except in complete disorder), as well as the final lines referencing 'See Emily Play', appear in the song. It's a beautiful, dark song, and at this point, I don't even bother about the closing guitar solo (is there any other possible way to close the album?). It's all fine and dandy.</p>

<p>To be honest, I don't even know why I'm so positive about the album. But then again, I'm probably not <em>that</em> positive about the album; it's just that the good spots stand out a lot more, when you consider the previous album. Also, it's a much more pleasant album to listen to. Though it's not much more than pleasant, and a few parts of it aren't even that. So... what's the point? Well, it has 'Poles Apart'. <em>And</em> Rick Wright contributed with one song. And... er, it could have been much worse. And yes, it's the last Pink Floyd studio album, and if you allow me to say so, let it be just that. I mean, it was awesome to see the four guys joining together for Live 8, but let's leave the possibility of a new studio album out of question.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>11/15</strong></big> - It's pleasant, and moderately entertaining.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>11/15</strong></big> - I can't say they don't get a real mood going on here, though.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>9/15</strong></big>  - Well, it <em>is</em> somewhat fresh.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>11/15</strong></big> - There <em>is</em> good music to be found, here.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Sure. It works well. It's <em>LONG</em>, but works well.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/10.png" alt="10" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Raves? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send 'em in</a>!</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Syd Barrett</h2>

<h2 id="laughs">The Madcap Laughs (1970)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>Octopus</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>Terrapin <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">No Good Trying ++</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Love You ++</span></li>
  <li>No Man's Land <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Dark Globe ++</span></li>
  <li>Here I Go <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">Octopus ++</span></li>
  <li>Golden Hair <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>Long Gone</li>
  <li>She Took A Long Cold Look</li>
  <li>Feel</li>
  <li>If It's In You</li>
  <li><span class="good">Late Night ++</span></li>
</ol>

<p>Before Syd Barrett turned into a real myth, he had a short lived solo career - and not a very obscure one, I say. In fact, among the works of Pink Floyd solo members, Syd's might be the most interesting, and <strong>The Madcap Laughs</strong> is a true classic in all respects. There are some pitfalls and traps here, though, for those who want insight into Syd's creative mind, because many (myself included) made it look like this album is a closer look into a completely insane mind. It isn't. Of course Syd wasn't the sanest of men back at that time, but the danger comes from listening to the man as if he were a caricature, and not a man. And the case is so serious that even David Gilmour and Roger Waters, who produced portions of the record, get very close to depicting him in a disfigured way. That's a shame, because this album is, primarily and mostly, a record of <em>music</em>, not of psychiatric theses.</p>

<p>I can't pretend you'll find an "album for the whole family" here, though. Many things here are definitely strange, but that's more due to the modus operandi of Syd Barrett and Malcom Jones, who was the initial producer of the record. Firstly, most songs were recorded firstly with Syd on the guitar and vocals, and the rest of the instruments were added <em>later</em>. This was the case of, for example, 'No Good Trying' and 'Love You'. And Syd wasn't at all bothered with keeping the rhythm steadily, so he'd skip or add beats, stum a single chord away for an indeterminate amount of time - not to mention that he'd have a new idea with each take, so you have an idea of how things were going. On those two particular songs, members of The Soft Machine were invited to record the backing track. They had little or no time to rehearse, had to try to follow Syd's unpredictable playing, and he'd insist that everything was completely okay, so the finished results almost sound like a car crash, at times. But what do you know? They are both <em>excellent</em> songs,and really, after listening to THESE versions of the songs, trying to make a "normal" recording of them would sound just wrong. Syd is caught on a very spontaneous moment, and the Soft Machine's efforts only add to the "normality is so boring!" spirit of everything. 'Love You', in particular, is a total delight, with those quirky romantic lyrics and a nursery-rhyme-ish melody.</p>

<p>Stepping away from those two songs in particular, the album is built with many different bits and pieces from many different sessions. There are songs taken from the very first sessions with Malcolm Jones, there are tracks recorded live-in-the-studio with Syd and some invited musicians, there are tracks produced by Gilmour and Waters, and so on. So, I can't really talk about the whole album in the same breath. So, yes, we have all sorts of stuff here. Side A focuses on the more rock-oriented material, with two songs already covered above. The fuzz-rocker 'No Man's Land' is really good and fresh, and 'Here I Go' is a very fun and very pretty "oldies style" tune to close the set. The other two tracks feaure only Syd and his guitar, and both are complete opposites in terms of mood. 'Terrapin' is bluesy and tranquil, and the lyrics are really groovy. It's one of the nicest, catchiest songs here, in fact. 'Dark Globe', on the other hand, is one of the most chilling, disarming songs in Syd's career, and leaves you wondering really what sorts of problems <em>could</em> be running in his head.</p>

<p>Side B goes on a lighter direction, and has a stretch of 3 "one-take" acoustic performances, which Syd just played as his ex-Floyd mates requested him. They're nice songs and have very good melodies (especially 'Feel'), but what particularly bothers me is the decision to include an aborted take of 'If It's In You', in which Syd goes horribly out-of-tune - and not only that, but the whole performance is awfully unsure and rough, showing clearly that he hadn't rehearsed much, and probably wasn't even willing to play the song in first place. The songs would probably have yelded great performances if worked properly, but as they are, come off as nothing much more than sketches. The non-sketch songs, though, are really great! 'Long Gone', which in essence is also an "acoustic only" song, gets a fuller arrangement that works very well, and 'Golden Hair' - Syd's musical reading to a James Joyce poem - is outstanding, featuring a mantraic melody for voice and guitar, augmented by soft arrangements for vibraphones, cymbals and whatnot, while keeping the atmosphere it should have. The other two are big favourites of mine: 'Late Night' is a gorgeous little tune, with a rather eerie arrangement and a beautiful melody. And 'Octopus' is, quite simply, a pop masterpiece.Really, this song is among one of the best things Syd <em>ever</em> did, with a madly cheerful series of vocal lines, an exciting vocal delivery, a great work by the backing band and even a great guitar solo. This is one of those things that is hard to explain, but 'Octopus' is, to me, a prototype of a perfect pop song. Acoustic guitar jangling can't get much better than this.</p>

<p>Pink Floyd fans can hardly get on without this album, in short; even if this is the <em>only</em> Syd acquisition they'll make. It's very, very far from <strong>Piper At The Gates Of Dawn</strong>, but it's still a necessary listen. Get this not just to see the "mad" side of Syd Barrett, but to see his musical, talented side.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Great songs all over it. Quite simply.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - It's hard to think this stuff is not sincere. It's Syd at his most vulnerable and open.<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>13/15</strong></big> - There's hardly any stab at something <em>innovative</em>, but this is Syd Barrett, inimitable and unequallable.<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>13/15</strong></big> - This is <em>music</em>, man, nothing more than pure music.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>13/15</strong></big> - Even though it's not very smooth, it's a very complete record.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/13.png" alt="13" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Suggestions? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Send them in</a>!</p>

<h2 class="artistHeader">Roger Waters</h2>

<h2 id="hitchhiking">The Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking (1984)</h2>
<p class="medium">
  Best song: <big>5:06 AM (Every Stranger's Eyes)</big>
</p>
<div class="medium">
  Track list:
</div>
<ol class="trackList">
  <li>4:30 AM (Apparently They Were Travelling Abroad) <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">4:33 AM (Running Shoes) ++</span></li>
  <li>4:37 AM (Arabs With Knives And West German Skies) <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>4:39 AM (For The First Time Today, part 2)</li>
  <li>4:41 AM (Sexual Revolution) <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li>4:47 AM (The Remains Of Our Love)</li>
  <li><span class="good">4:50 AM (Go Fishing) ++</span></li>
  <li>4:56 AM (For The First Time Today, part 1)</li>
  <li>4:58 AM (Duncarin, Dunroamin, Dunlivin)</li>
  <li>5:01 AM (The Pros And Cons Of Hitch Hiking, part 10) <span class="good">+</span></li>
  <li><span class="good">5:06 AM (Every Stranger's Eyes) ++</span></li>
  <li>5:11 AM (The Moment Of Clarity)</li>
</ol>

<p>As Pink Floyd finally came crumbling down to bits (that is, before David Gilmour promptly put it back up... er, sort of), Roger Waters went his own way to release his first fully solo release. As usual, this is a concept album, and the concept was actually developed just after <strong>Animals</strong>, and it was one of the options he presented to the band along with <strong>The Wall</strong>. The concept is... well, obscure, to say the least. And the music is... well,not very "user-friendly". As a result, this is one of the most hated Floyd-related releases of all time. And why? Who the hell knows!</p>

<p>Okay, I <em>can</em> see why. Firstly, the lyrics hardly ever make sense. They take all sorts of left turns and make all sorts of obscure references. Secondly, the music is repetitive <em>as hell</em>: and not just the individual songs, but the WHOLE album. Everything here is done in that trademark "bluesy" style, with Eric Clapton providing lead guitar,those female backing vocalists a la 'Not Now John', and Roger Waters, Roger Waters, Roger Waters and even more backing vocalists. And the same melodies are played all over the album. Heck! Everything sounds the same! Waters never stops whining! There are gimmicky sound effects everywhere! Argh. Yeah, it often goes like that. But you know what? This isn't really the case of the album being bad, but of the album having its own, well-defined style. Firstly, the storyline of the album follows a man's dream sequence, of getting involved with a hitchhiker, going to live with her in the country and getting completely fucked up until he finally realises that he's safe with his wife, at home, and that they still love each other. This is done in the most obscure way possible, with red family cars turning into green Lamborghinis, Arabs with knifes invading the man's bedroom, Yoko Ono encouraging a man to jump from an airplane's wing,and so on. And the actual lyrics only show <em>a part</em> of the story, with the overall storyline narrated on the liner notes. Anyway, say whatever you wish about the lyrics, you gotta give credit to the man who created the concept of a "real time" album way before <em>24</em> hit the TV screens. Awesome, huh? (yes, this is supposed to sound stupid)</p>

<p>But, anyway, the music. Yes, it "all sounds the same", but with a reason. The album isn't made of "songs". See the subtitle of track ten? It says "The Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking, <em>PART 10</em>". See? All songs are merely parts of the same musical piece! So the repetition of themes isn't due to the lack of ideas, but a way to provide the unity of the whole thing. Now, I'm not saying that a 40-minute-long Roger Waters piece with nonsensical lyrics is necessarily a good thing and that the haters are all wrong. Everyone has the right to hate the album, and I'm not saying otherwise, you FUCKING NAZIS! All I'm saying is that, hey, the album is somewhat unique, and I LIKE IT A LOT. You ever had that feeling of not being so sure if you like an album or not - or worse, whether you SHOULD like it or not? Well, I've had.and further listens confirmed that, yes, I like this album a lot. Come to think of it, I like it better than <strong>The Wall</strong>. It's not quite as whiny, and the music is very beautiful pretty much all the way through. The old dogma that Roger Waters isn't a good songwriter, and thus relies entirely on lyrics, shows to be not quite right here. There aren't too many themes, but the are very good and very melodic (!). And despite the sameyness of it all, there are several standouts through the album.</p>

<p>Say, the wild "quiet/loud" dynamics help give the album a sense of motion and happening, such as on 'Running Shoes' and 'Arabs With Knives And West German Skies'. The opening track introduces the themes that are used all over the album, and it's very nice and well performed. The songs that break off from the overall formula are really good, such as the pounding, dramatic 'Sexual Revolution' (the song is radically different from what you'd imagine judging solely by the title, heh heh) and the also pounding and also dramatic 'Go Fishing', which I really like. For a change from the hazy, hungover atmosphere of it all, the snappy, upbeat, funny 'The Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking, part 10' shows up almost as a blessing. A honestly catchy song at last! Yup, you heard it. Of course, it's STILL on that bluesy style with female backing vocalists and Eric Clapton, but it <em>does</em> stand out considerably. And to round things off, 'Every Stranger's Eyes' is one of the most beautiful ballads Roger ever wrote. The performance is very tender and poignant, and there's no overdoing of the "emotional" effect (okay, it gets close, at times). And it's plainly cool to have a song about those wholesome "moments of clarity" one experiences briefly before or after sleep. If you don't think so, well, go get yourself officially screwed. I <em>do</em> find it extra-cool, and the song is gorgeous, like I said.</p>

<p>Overall, the most striking aspect of this record is that it's a FUN, LIGHTWEIGHT release from the man of <strong>The Final Cut</strong> fame. And it really does sound like he and the band had a lot of fun recording it, and I appreciate that. In general, I can say that this album tramples <strong>A Momentary Lapse Of Reason</strong>, though that ain't saying much. Yeah, like I said, I like it better than <strong>The Wall</strong> and almost as much as <strong>The Final Cut</strong>, albeit in a different way. This is one of the best "not-give-a-damn" albums I have, and I'll always have fun listening to it. I think. I just don't recommend it to the faint of the heart. Consider yourself well warned.</p>

<p class="ratingHeader">
  Rating:
</p>

<p class="rating">
  <big>Fun factor:  <strong>13/15</strong></big> - A GODDAMN 13, yes. You saw that right.<br />
  <big>Resonance:   <strong>10/15</strong></big> - How the heck should I know? Is this sincerity or just a well-performed role in a play?<br />
  <big>Originality: <strong>10/15</strong></big> - Ehh...<br />
  <big>Richness:    <strong>12/15</strong></big> - I'll say it again: the musical themes, though they are few, are very good.<br />
  <big>Solidness:   <strong>12/15</strong></big> - Yes, it does work very well.
</p>

<p class="ratingFinale">
  Total: <img src="images/11.png" alt="11" />
</p>

<p>Comments? Complaints? <a href="mailto:sirmustapha@gmail.com">Mail them</a>!</p>

<hr />

<p><a href="index.htm">Back to the Reviews Page index</a></p>

<p>
  <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
      src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10"
      alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!" height="31" width="88" /></a>
</p>

</body>

</html>